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.
ITAT Mumbai held that liaison office in India doesnt constitute permanent establishment (PE) of the assessee in India under the provisions of DTAA.
ITAT Mumbai held that the date of acquisition of the property under consideration was to be reckoned from the date of the allotment letter and capital gain will be calculated accordingly.
ITAT Mumbai held that mere delay in filing Form No. 67 as per the provisions of Rule 128(9) will not preclude the assesses from claiming the benefit of foreign tax credit in respect of tax paid outside India.
ITAT Mumbai held that filing of an appeal against the order of AO was firstly in manual mode, which was duly accepted by the department, and thereafter in electronic mode without losing any time when pointed. The same is sufficient reason to condone the delay.
Approval under section 80G sought for by the assessee cannot be subjected to any condition as there is an inbuilt mechanism to be complied with by assessee after getting registration/approval under section 12AA and 80G
DCIT Vs Reliance Industrial Holdings Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) In the cases of the reopened assessments first and foremost one has to see the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, as these are the reasons which give jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer for initiating, and proceedings with, the reassessment. The reasons so recorded must meet […]
The ITAT directed the ld. AO directed to consider only those investments which had actually yielded exempt income during the year while working out the disallowance under third limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee duly furnished details like PAN, sub-contract amount and details of TDS justifying payment to sub-contractors. Merely disallowing 10% of sub-contract expense without verifying the veracity of assessee’s claim based on the evidences produced is unsustainable in law.
