The ITAT held that non-reporting of capital gains from redemption of mutual funds amounted to underreporting resulting from misreporting of income. It upheld the penalty under Section 270A after finding failure to record receipts affecting total income.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that certified segmental financial information could not be rejected mechanically without identifying defects. It remanded the issue to the TPO for fresh consideration.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that payments made for Google AdWords constitute advertising contracts under Section 194C and not fees for technical services under Section 194J. The Tribunal ruled that the automated platform did not involve the rendering of technical services to the advertiser.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal by applying the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation directions. It also allowed the Foreign Tax Credit claim by following earlier judicial precedents.
The case concerned denial of Foreign Tax Credit solely due to delayed filing of Form No. 67. The Tribunal followed earlier precedents and directed that the credit be granted after verification.
The ITAT held that penalty under Section 271DA cannot be sustained where the Assessing Officer failed to record a clear and conscious satisfaction regarding violation of Section 269ST in the assessment order. The ruling reiterates that such satisfaction is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that the entire sale consideration could not be assessed as short-term capital gains without examining the cost of acquisition and improvement. It remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the available records.
The ITAT Hyderabad accepted the assessee’s explanation that supporting documents could not be produced because the accountant was unavailable due to his son’s serious illness. It admitted the additional evidence and remanded the matter for fresh assessment.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that delayed filing of Form No. 67 cannot result in denial of foreign tax credit under Section 90. It ruled that the filing requirement is directory and cannot override the substantive benefit available under the DTAA.
The ITAT Hyderabad held that delayed filing of Form 67 does not justify denial of Foreign Tax Credit under the India–USA DTAA. It ruled that Rule 128(9) is directory and cannot override the substantive treaty benefit.
