Air France Vs Addl. CIT International Taxation (ITAT Delhi) The issue under consideration is whether Indian branch is deriving income from technical handling to IATP Pool Members and non IATP Members is taxable in India? ITAT states that, in the present case, it can be seen that the Indian Branch office is merely a branch […]
Lease Plan India Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) These appeals are against disallowance made by the learned assessing officer under section 40 (a)(i) on account of non-deduction of tax at source on guarantee commission paid to lease plan Corporation NV Netherland is confirmed holding it to be payment in nature of Fees For Technical […]
Whether the disallowance of contribution made to PNB Employees Pension Fund Trust, which the assessee claims to be its legitimate business expenditure is justified in law?
NIIT Foundation Vs CIT (ITAT Delhi) Online Coaching considered as Education u/s 2(15) hence eligible for Exemption under section 11/12 The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in holding that the activity carried out by the Appellant is not in the nature of ‘education’ within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the […]
The issue under consideration is whether the TPO is correct in considering subvention fee in the BPO segment instead of distribution segment?
The issue under consideration is whether the sale of shares by a Cyprus company to the assessee of an Indian company, who was holding a technology Park [immovable property] as only asset, is taxable in India in view of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Cyprus?
The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in holding that the payment for provision of transponder capacity is in the nature of Royalty?
The issue under consideration is whether the penalty proceeding initiated after 4.5 years from date of original assessment order is justified in lawand also when order was silent about the levy of penalty under section 271B?
ITAT states that, disclosure of manner in which undisclosed income was earned and substantiating the manner in which undisclosed income was earned are two different things. Hence, there is no clarity in the stand of the Revenue for initiation of penalty under Section 271AAA,
Merely because assessee has inserted some figures, which are not in coherence with the other figures in the income tax return, there is a mistake apparent from the record, which needs to be rectified. Thus, the lower authorities are not justified in rejecting the application under section 154 of the act of the assessee. Hence, ITAT allow the appeal of the assessee.
