ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment alleging that assessee has failed to provide fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment is bad in law as details already made available to AO during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings.
ITAT Mumbai held that payment towards buy-back of shares to an NRI doesn’t attract deduction of tax under section 195 as according to Indo-Singapore DTAA jurisdiction for taxing the capital gains arising in the hands of an NRI is in Singapore and not in India
ITAT Mumbai held that Honble jurisdictional High Court order in case of CIT v Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council has held that none of the conditions attached to the grant affected the voluntary nature of the contribution and accordingly they would be exempt under section 12 of the Act and it is settled law that decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court is binding upon subordinate Tribunal and courts.
ITAT Mumbai held that depreciation cannot be disallowed as application of income under section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act when the assessee has not claimed purchase of asset as application of income in any of the previous years.
L&T Infra Debt Fund Limited Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Mumbai) In the instant case, we notice that the AO did not examine the exemption claimed u/s 10(47) of the Act, meaning thereby, the assessment order has been passed by the AO without application of mind. The exemption so allowed without examining the claim would be […]
ITAT Mumbai held that consultancy services not of technical nature cannot treated as Fees for Included Services as per sub-clause 4B of Article 12 of DTAA between India –USA and hence addition unsustainable
ITAT Mumbai held that as per the provisions of 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act if the date of agreement fixing the consideration and date of registration are not in same, the stamp duty value may be taken as on the date of agreement fixing the consideration, instead of that on the date of registration.
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment was undertaken by AO without application of mind on complete incorrect assumption of fact that no return of income was filed for the relevant Assessment year and hence said reopening of assessment is invalid.
ITAT Mumbai held that any order passed by the TPO beyond a period of limitation as prescribed under the provisions of section 92CA(3A) of the Income Tax Act is bad in law.
ITAT Mumbai held that in terms of non- obstinate clause used in section 80IA(2A), deduction for telecommunication services is available in respect of profits of eligible business and is not restricted to profits derived from eligible business as mentioned in section 80IA(1) of the Act.
