Judgement

ITAT follows binding HC and earlier coordinate bench rulings to hold that payments for IPLC/MPLS connectivity services are not taxable as royalty

Bandwidth Charges Not Royalty Under India-Singapore DTAA: ITAT Delhi

The tribunal held that the assessee is liable to give a explanation regarding the source of cash deposits, and just submitting self-serving affidavits without any supporting evidence cannot discharge this burden.

Just Filing Self-Serving Affidavits Without Supporting Evidence Does Not Discharge Assessee's Onus to Explain Source of Cash Deposit: ITAT

ITAT upheld the quashing of reassessment due to defective Section 148A proceedings, violation of natural justice, and invalid approval under Section 151.

ITAT Upholds Taxpayer’s Relief Due to Defective Section 148A Proceedings and Invalid Approval

ITAT rules that an assessee cannot be denied TDS credit due to the deductor’s failure to deposit tax, and directs grant of credit with deletion interest.

Assessee Cannot Be Denied TDS Credit for Deductor’s Default: ITAT Pune

ITAT held that a protective addition cannot survive when the related substantive assessment has already been quashed, and dismissed the tax department’s appeal.

Protective Addition Under Section 153A Invalid Without Surviving Substantive Assessment: Rules ITAT

Court reiterates that CBDT Office Memorandums do not fetter discretion under Section 220(6) and remands matter for fresh consideration

Explore Our Blogs

Stay updated with the latest insights, tips, and industry trends from our experts

Bandwidth Charges Not Royalty Under India-Singapore DTAA: ITAT Delhi

Just Filing Self-Serving Affidavits Without Supporting Evidence Does Not Discharge Assessee's Onus to Explain Source of Cash Deposit: ITAT

ITAT Upholds Taxpayer’s Relief Due to Defective Section 148A Proceedings and Invalid Approval

Assessee Cannot Be Denied TDS Credit for Deductor’s Default: ITAT Pune

Protective Addition Under Section 153A Invalid Without Surviving Substantive Assessment: Rules ITAT

HC Quashes Mechanical Rejection of Stay Application; AO Cannot Insist on 20% Deposit as Mandatory