ITAT Delhi held that as there is no copyright on live events, the license fees for live and non-live transmission right cannot be taxed as royaty in terms of section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, addition deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that law does not confer any power on the Assessing Officer to either withdraw or modify or substitute one assessment order passed by him earlier with another assessment order subsequently.
Finance Act, 2017 removed clause (i) of section 92BA, effectively nullifying any decisions made by the Assessing Officer under this section. Reference to the TPO under section 92CA also becomes invalid
ITAT rules that an assessee isn’t responsible for a non-responsive supplier when purchases were made in earlier years. Lack of supplier’s response to a section 133(6) notice doesn’t invalidate the transaction.
ITAT Delhi held that software licence fee received as reimbursement, in absence of a Permanent Establishment in India, is not taxable. Accordingly, addition towards the same deleted.
ITAT Delhi’s verdict on JBJ Technologies Ltd. Vs DCIT: Rectification under Section 154 of Income Tax Act can’t adjust prior period expenses.
An analysis of ITAT Delhi’s ruling in the Neeti Rastogi vs. ACIT case, emphasizing CBDT Circular’s role in defining unexplained jewellery under the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that addition on the basis of fall in gross profits without pointing out any specific discrepancy in accounts that resulted into suppression of true figure of gross profit is unsustainable in law.
Analysis of ITAT Delhi’s decision on the case between Home Developers Project Pvt. Ltd. & DCIT. Focus on AO’s failure & burden of evidence on the assessee.
Delhi’s ITAT rules on disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The verdict clarifies treatment of revenue expenses not claimed in P&L accounts.
