ITAT Delhi held that the assessee is entitled to make additional claim of deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act on the strength of judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka even though the same was not included while filing return of income.
ITAT Delhi held that payments received by the assessee qualifies as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under sub-clause (4) of Article 12 of Indo – Singapore DTAA and hence rightly brought to tax @10%.
Read how ITAT Delhi deleted ALP adjustment in STEAG Energy Services vs. ACIT case, as it falls within tolerance band of +/- 5% under Section 92C(2) of Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act unsustainable in absence of any concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that the payment of assessee made in cash in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act is not eligible for benefit of exceptions envisages under Rules 6DD(f) in absence of any evidence supporting identity and genuineness of the supplier.
In a recent case, ITAT Delhi ruled that having a difference of opinion alone is insufficient to invoke Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi rules that penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be imposed based on non-existing or deleted disallowances.
In a recent case, ITAT Delhi ruled that an appeal by a suspended director after appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) is not maintainable.
ITAT Delhi held that income from subscription, professional and training services for use of software doesn’t fall within the definition of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under India-Netherlands DTAA and hence cannot be taxed in India.
Explore the case of Alankit Imaginations Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi), where penalties were challenged. Learn why a ‘non-cooperative attitude’ alone cannot justify penalties.
