ITAT Delhi held that the receipts from centralised service income are not taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS)/ Fees for included Services (FIS) under Article 12(4)(a) of India-USA DTAA.
ITAT Mumbai’s decision in case of DCIT vs KEC International Limited, where a 0.6% arm’s length rate was established for corporate guarantee fees, influencing future transfer pricing adjustments.
In a recent case, Delhi High Court ruled that proviso to Section 45(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is an exception for women, exempting them from satisfying the twin conditions of Section 45. The court held that sub-classifying women under different categories and applying twin conditions would violate Article 14 of Constitution. The applicant, accused in a complaint case related to the Unitech Group, was granted bail after undergoing extensive investigations and custody for over 20 months.
Explore landmark ruling in Citibank N.A Vs S.K. Ojha case by Bombay High Court, confirming that post-Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme determination, the Assessing Officer lacks jurisdiction to reopen tax assessments under Section 143 of Income Tax Act. Unearth key insights from this case setting a precedent for businesses under KVSS.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules on the Rajesh Mangal vs C.C.E. & S.T. case, affirming the validity of an excise duty demand but reducing the penalty under Rule 26. Read about the implications and insights from this ruling.
Unravel the Rahul Gupta vs CPIO case where the CIC upheld that public authorities are not obliged to provide opinions or advice under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
ITAT Bangalore held that if two out of the three preceding assessment year the comparable has earned profits it cannot be held a persistent loss making company. Hence, persistent loss filter can be applied only if there is loss in three successive assessment years.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that membership fees paid for a key person of a company are allowable as business expenditure. The case involved the disallowance of club membership fees paid to Cricket Club of India.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that the interest subsidy received under the technology upgradation fund scheme is considered a capital receipt, even if it is credited against interest expenditure in the books of account.
In a recent case, the ITAT Hyderabad held that the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act are not applicable when the source of income is disclosed.