In this landmark ITAT Pune Third Member Bench decision, Sandvik Asia Ltd. and the Revenue contested multiple tax issues for AY 1992-93. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on excluding excise duty, sales-tax, interest, and scrap sales from turnover for section 80HHC deductions, and on Modvat credit valuation, upholding consistent accounting methods. However, it sided with the Revenue on disallowing depreciation on guest house assets under section 37(4) and denying bad debt deductions due to mere provisioning. The judgment reinforces principles of statutory interpretation, precedent adherence, and accounting consistency in tax computations.

In this landmark prosecution case, the Patna High Court dismissed challenges to criminal proceedings under Section 276CC for willful failure to file income tax returns post-search. The Court clarified that Settlement Commission immunity from penalty does not bar prosecution for procedural defaults like non-filing of returns. Critical legal principles established include: (1) Prosecution under Section 276CC is independent of penalty immunity; (2) Complaint petitions need not quantify tax evasion for initiating prosecution; (3) The Rs. 3,000/- tax threshold defense is inapplicable to search cases governed by Section 276CCC. This judgment reinforces the department’s authority to prosecute procedural non-compliance even when substantive tax disputes are settled.

In this landmark ITAT Mumbai ruling, the Tribunal decisively held that service tax collected by non-resident shipping operators must be included in gross receipts for computing presumptive income under section 44B of the Income Tax Act. The Court rejected the assessee’s contention that service tax lacks profit element, emphasizing that the statutory scheme under section 44B encompasses all amounts received for carriage, including similar charges like demurrage. This judgment clarifies the broad scope of ‘aggregate amount’ under section 44B, reinforcing revenue’s stance on inclusive taxation of ancillary receipts. Concurrently, the Tribunal provided relief by deleting interest under section 234B, citing payer’s TDS obligation. The decision balances stringent interpretation of business receipts with taxpayer safeguards on interest levies.

In this landmark judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court clarifies critical principles in Indian tax law concerning rectification of mistakes and carry forward of losses for non-resident assessees. The Court decisively rules that the right to carry forward losses is substantive, not procedural, and must align with the statutory provisions in force during the loss-incurring years. For non-residents, this restricts carry forward to losses in taxable territories, as per the unamended Section 24(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and relevant removal of difficulties orders. The judgment reinforces the scope of Section 35 rectification, affirming that clear legal errors—such as disregarding statutory restrictions—constitute ‘mistakes apparent from the record’ even if based on a retrospective understanding. Additionally, it delineates appellate merger principles, holding that an unappealed part of an order does not merge with a Tribunal decision on other issues, preserving the lower authority’s rectification power. This case is essential for practitioners dealing with loss carry-forward claims, rectification proceedings, and jurisdictional overlaps in appeals.

In this landmark ITAT Pune Third Member decision, Kirloskar Electrodyn Ltd. contested disallowances under sections 80-I and 37(2A). The core legal battle centered on interpreting ‘derived from’ under section 80-I for income from ancillary services and interest. The majority, emphasizing a narrow interpretation, denied deductions, ruling that erection/installation services and interest lack a direct nexus to the industrial undertaking. The dissent highlighted integrated business operations and precedent support for eligibility. The judgment clarifies critical nuances in deduction claims, impacting manufacturing entities with diversified revenue streams, while remanding procedural issues for factual reassessment.

In a landmark ruling on international taxation, the Bangalore ITAT favored ABB FZ-LLC, a UAE-based entity, by holding that payments for regional services are not taxable as ‘royalty’ in India under the India-UAE DTAA. The Tribunal reinforced the primacy of DTAA over domestic law, ruling that in the absence of a specific Fees for Technical Services (FTS) clause in the treaty, such income falls under Article 7 (Business Profits) and, without a Permanent Establishment in India, escapes Indian taxation. This decision underscores critical principles in treaty interpretation, rejecting the Revenue’s attempt to apply domestic provisions where the DTAA is silent, and provides clarity on the characterization of cross-border service payments, impacting multinationals leveraging treaty benefits.

In this landmark ruling by the Delhi ITAT, the Tribunal overturned the addition of Rs.40 lakhs under section 68, reinforcing the principle that assessees can discharge their onus with robust documentary evidence. The decision underscores that the Revenue must conduct diligent inquiries to rebut such evidence, failing which additions cannot be sustained. The judgment provides clarity on the shifting burden of proof in section 68 cases and serves as a critical reference for disputes involving share application money and unexplained credits.

In this landmark ITAT Chandigarh ruling, the Tribunal dismissed Revenue’s appeals concerning disallowances under Sections 36(1)(iii) and 14A for M/s BBF Industries Limited. The decision reinforces critical safeguards for taxpayers: under Section 36(1)(iii), disallowance of interest expenditure is impermissible if assessee demonstrates sufficient own funds and business use of borrowed funds, shifting the onus to Revenue to prove diversion. Under Section 14A, disallowance is invalid absent actual exempt income, affirming the ‘actual receipt’ principle. The judgment consolidates key precedents on mixed fund theory and strategic investments, providing clarity for corporates on interest disallowance and exempt income computations.