Held that a domestic transaction of purchase from the related party is not required to be considered as a specified domestic transaction under section 92BA.
Krishna Knitwear Technology Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that since proceedings under I&B code have already been initiated/decided and moratorium has been declared by prohibiting all the proceedings against the corporate debtors including execution of any judgment, decree or order of any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority, present appeals […]
‘IHC’ cannot be disintegrated from profit derived from shipping business as envisaged under Article -8 of India-UAE DTAA. Ergo, ‘IHC’ are not taxable as business profit in India.
ITAT Held that addition on the basis of the opening balance of unsecured loan treating the same as current year transaction by invoking section 68 of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable.
Payments made for global brand/communication/technology/knowledge cannot be treated as Royalty as per Article 13(3) of India-UK DTAA
Rajesh Shantaram Chavan vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) M/s.Century Textiles and Industries Limited was incurring heavy losses and shut down its Worli Textile Mill Unit in 2008. Around 6300 of its 6600 Mill workers opted for the voluntary retirement scheme, however, 275 workers had opposed for closure of the Mill. Assessee is one of the 275 […]
R.S. Diamonds India Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has deposited a sum of Rs. 45 lakhs into its bank account during demonetization period. It was explained that the above said amount represented cash balance available in its books of account, which included advance received from the customers […]
Air India Ltd. Vs CIT (ITAT Mumbai) Introduction Appeals were filed before the Hon’ble ITAT against the order of the AIR INDIA LIMITED Vs Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi which was pertaining to the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18,2018-19 and 2019-20. Grounds of appeal The decision of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax […]
Held that compensation with interest received by the assessee up to the date of land acquired pursuant to the Hon’ble Supreme Court order should be taxed under the head Capital Gains.
Held that treating value of international transaction as NIL without searching for transaction between non-associated enterprises is unsustainable in law
