ITAT Delhi held that there is no copyright on live events, and therefore, the fee received towards live transmission cannot be taxed as royalty in terms of Section 9(l)(vi).
ITAT Delhi held that AO drew belief on the reasons which were later found to be totally non-existent. Such defect in the reasons cannot be ascribed as a mere technical irregularity and consequently defect cannot be cured by applying Section 292B of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act Act which were introduced in the Act by Finance Act, 2010 cannot be given retrospective effect.
ITAT Delhi held that as per provisions of section 207 of the Income Tax Act, an individual resident of 60 years or more and not having income chargeable under the head ‘profit and gains’ of business or profession is not required to pay the advance tax.
ITAT Delhi held that amount received from sale of software (i.e. copyrighted article) cannot be treated as royalty under Article 12(3) of India-USA DTAA.
ITAT Delhi held that amount received by the assessee from providing SAP support services and IT support services is not covered within the purview of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) and hence not taxable in India in absence of permanent establishment.
ITAT Delhi held that the amount of received in the arbitration settlement is related to project office of the assessee company in India. Accordingly, the same is taxable in India.
ITAT Delhi held that AO cannot put the entire burden on the assessee to show in whose hands the inadvertent receipts shown in Form 26AS has been declared. Assessee is not responsible to explain the recipients of such inadvertent receipts shown in Form No. 26AS.
ITAT Delhi held that determination of the rent or CAM are separate and the CAM arrangements are not essential and an integral part for use of the premises. Hence, provisions for rent are governed by Section 194I and CAM charges by Section 194C of the Act.
ITAT Delhi held that revision of assessment order unjustifiable as the assessment order cannot be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
