ITAT Mumbai

Static vs. Ambulatory interpretation of DTAAs – Retrospective amendments to definition of royalty

ACIT Vs Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)

ACIT Vs Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Let us appreciate the nature of development, from the treaty perspective, in case one is to hold that the retrospective amendments defining the expression ‘process’ would be equally applicable for definition of ‘royalties’ under the tax treaty. Thus viewed, situation could be like t...

Read More

TDR is a capital asset as inextricably linked with immovable property

Adi D Vachha Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

TDR is a capital asset, because it is inextricably linked with immovable property and also flows from transfer of immovable property. When, TDR is considered to be an immovable property/assets within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T.Act, then any right in such TDR is also needs to be considered as a asset within the meaning of sect...

Read More

ITAT explains Law on taxation under DTAAs of transparent entities & Representative Assesseess

ING Bewaar Maatschappij I BV Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

The principle emerging out of this analysis of legal position is that when an assessee is a representative assessee of a tax transparent entity, it is the status of beneficiaries or constituents of tax transparent entities which is relevant for the purpose of determining treaty protection. Viewed thus, this is beyond doubt that the income...

Read More

Depreciation cannot be allowed on non-existing / Impaired asset

Aramark India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Aramark India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) There is no dispute with regard to allowability of deprecation on goodwill, but when you compare the facts of the current year, the question of allowability of deprecation has to be examined, in the light of provision of section 32(1), where it mandates the block of assets […]...

Read More

Adhoc disallowance of expenses not justified without pointing any defects

TUV India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

No enquiries were conducted by the AO/learned CIT(A) even during appellate/remand proceedings . The books of accounts were not rejected by authorities below nor any defect is pointed out by the AO/learned CIT(A) in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. There is no allegation by Revenue that the assessee claimed any bogus expen...

Read More

Appeal cannot be dismissed for Manual Filing during transition period: ITAT Mumbai

Mr. Umesh A Mishra Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

Assessee had filed appeal in manual form and such appeal had been filed within prescribed time under the Act, merely because assessee had not filed appeal in electronic form, assessee’s appeal could not be dismissed on technical grounds that too during transition period prescribed by CBDT....

Read More

AO cannot disallow Section 35(2)(AB) deduction without application of Mind

ACIT Vs M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)

Disallowance of deduction under section 35(2)(AB) on the ground of non approval of expenditure claimed by the DSIR was allowable as prior to the amendment, i.e., upto 30.06.2016, the pre-requisite for allow ability of deduction was approval for Units and not approval for the quantum of expenditure. Moreover, AO disallowed the claim withou...

Read More

No transfer u/s 2(47)(v) in absence of possession of land to JDA

ITO Vs State Bank of India Staff Vaibhav Co-op. HSG. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)

Since possession of land was not handed over to the Developer by assessee-society, therefore, there could not be any transfer within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) read with section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, even based on part performance of the contract. Accordingly. there was no liability of capital gain tax under section ...

Read More

Section 56(2)(viia) not applies on acquisition of shares of a foreign company as per rule 11U(b)(ii) prior to 01.04.2019

M/s. Keva Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

Provisions of section 56(2)(viia) was not applicable on acquisition of shares of a foreign company from its directors  because as per rule 11U(b)(ii) (prior to 01.04.2019) which defines "balance sheet‟ was not applicable to a foreign company and the amendment to Rule 11U with effect from 1.4.19 was prospective in nature. If the computa...

Read More

Referral fees to foreign concern for introducing clients is not a fee for technical services

M/s Knight Frank (India) (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Services rendered by foreign concern for introducing a client did not make-available any technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes to assessee, therefore, related payment did not fall within the realm of "Fees for included services" as envisaged in Article 12 of the Indo-US, DTAA and payment made to foreign concern con...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,375)
Company Law (5,170)
Custom Duty (7,494)
DGFT (4,051)
Excise Duty (4,279)
Fema / RBI (3,902)
Finance (4,053)
Income Tax (31,258)
SEBI (3,249)
Service Tax (3,483)