The ITAT Delhi has cancelled a Rs.986 crore tax on Tata NYK Shipping, reiterating that international shipping income is exempt under Article 8 of the DTAA, not taxable as royalty.
Tribunal held that different floors of the same residential property cannot be treated as separate houses. Jyoti Jain’s exemption under Section 54F was allowed, clarifying the scope of ‘residential house’ for capital gains exemption.
In a ruling for Sureshkumar Prabhulal Thakkar, the ITAT Ahmedabad has cancelled a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), stating that an Assessing Officer cannot impose a penalty simply because an expense claim is disallowed.
Briya Enterprise Ltd. successfully had delays in filing appeals condoned after ITAT held that notices sent to outdated email IDs and old Authorized Representatives justified the delay. Appeals were restored to CIT(A) for fresh decisions on merits.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Mumbai ruled in favor of NND Ambernath LLP, holding that a donation made to an institution with a valid exemption at the time of the transaction cannot be disallowed.
Ramachandra Reddy Vs DCIT: The Karnataka High Court quashes reassessment notices issued by jurisdictional AOs, holding that after the March 29, 2022 notification, all such proceedings must be conducted via the mandatory faceless regime under Section 151A.
ITAT Chandigarh held that additional evidences filed by the assessee deserves to be admitted inspite of casual and callous approach of assessee since the ultimate object of adjudication is to do substantial justice. However, cost of Rs. 3,000/- imposed.
The Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR) in Delhi granted an advance ruling to Samsung Display Noida Pvt. Ltd., affirming that its imported inputs for manufacturing OLED displays for laptops and tablets are eligible for a customs duty exemption. The decision relied on the “part of a part is a part of the whole” principle and a recent CBIC clarification.
ITAT Amritsar held that the statements recorded behind the back of the assessee cannot be used for making addition unless and an opportunity to cross examine the witness is allowed. Accordingly, addition towards bogus purchases duly restricted to 1.2%.
Delhi High Court held that AO is required to bring on record cogent evidence to justify the invocation of Section 13 of the Income Tax Act to deny exemption. Notably, material collected from the internet cannot be termed as corroborative piece of evidence. Accordingly, writ of revenue dismissed.
