ITAT RECENT JUDGEMENTS

 ·       Mumbai ITAT in the case of Mukesh Harilal Mehta held that Exemption U/S 54 cannot be denied merely due to mistake by the developer.

 

·       Delhi ITAT in the case of AB Sciex Pte Ltd. held that Since the 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐄 of the foreign company is 𝐚𝐥𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐫𝐦’𝐬 𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐡 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐞 by conducting a detailed transfer pricing analysis of the functions performed, assets used and risk assumed, there is 𝐧𝐨 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚.

 

·       In the case of Dhruv Milkose, Delhi ITAT has reiterated that Angel Tax provisions will not be applicable when a subsidiary is issuing shares to its 100% holding company.

 

·       Amendment in Section 14A cannot have retrospective operation, thus no disallowance can be made if the exempt income does not form part of the total income – Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Teamlease Digital Pvt. Ltd. v. National E-assessment Centre (I.T.A. No. 2101 / Mum /2023) (Relates to AY 2018-19). The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd (448 ITR 674) while deciding the above issue.

 

·        The phraseology of clause (a) to sub-rule (2) of Rule 11UA read with Explanation (a) to Section 56(2)(viib) do not thrust the requirement of Valuation Report for substantiation of valuation under NAV method. Therefore, No addition can be made when the assessee issue the share at NAV.  Delhi ITAT in case of DCIT VS. Continental Corrugators Pvt. Ltd.

 

·       The ITAT Ahmedabad held that for NPS, here is no date prescribed in PFRDA Act, 2013 as to the due date when payment is required to be made to the NPS Account so question of disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) does not arise.