Find out how ITAT Mumbai granted relief to Surat Road King, allowing depreciation on business assets (trucks) even when registered in partners names. Decision underscores principle of economic ownership over mere legal title and rejects ad-hoc disallowances made without concrete evidence.
The Tribunal found the addition uncalled for. cash deposits from the sale of old vehicles, accepted as genuine sales by the AO, cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 merely for the absence of buyers’ PAN or address details.
Mumbai ITAT rules capital gains on a foreign company’s share sale are non-taxable in India under Article 13(5) of the India-Singapore DTAA. TRC is conclusive proof.
ITAT ruled in Grasim Industries that a court-sanctioned scheme transfer before the 2021 amendment is a transfer by law, not a slump sale under Section 50B. The change is not retrospective.
The ITAT deleted a Rs.1.30 crore addition, ruling that the reassessment was invalid because the reason for reopening (payments made by the assessee) was entirely different from the reason for the final addition (loan received by the assessee). The Tribunal held that an addition made on a new, unrecorded reason renders the reassessment proceedings unsustainable in law.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that a Mauritian shipping companys freight income could not be taxed in India under Article 7 (Business Profits) of the DTAA. The decision was based on the finding that its Indian agent was commercially independent and did not constitute a Permanent Establishment (PE).
The ITAT deleted penalties under both Sections 271(1)(c) and 270A, ruling that merely making a bona fide but ultimately unsustainable tax claim under the India-UK DTAA does not attract a penalty. The Tribunal held that a difference in legal interpretation, especially in complex international tax issues, does not constitute concealment or misreporting of income.
The ITAT deleted the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) for a one-day delay in depositing employees PF contribution. The ruling held that the delay was due to a technical failure of the EPFO portal, not the taxpayers fault, successfully invoking the doctrine of impossibility over the strict ruling in Checkmate Services.
The ITAT restored the Section 11 exemption, ruling that the Diamond Bourse’s cost-recovery activities are purely facilitative and do not constitute “trade, commerce, or business” under the restrictive proviso to Section 2(15). The Tribunal held that genuine General Public Utility (GPU) organizations operating on a non-profit, cost-recovery basis are not affected by the amendment.
The ITAT deleted the addition, finding that the assessee fulfilled the Section 54F condition by investing the entire sale proceeds and acquiring legally enforceable rights in the property well before the two-year deadline. The key takeaway is that a delay in the execution of the final registered agreement, caused by the builder, cannot be held against the taxpayer.
