ITAT Mumbai Judgments — August 2017

The Tribunal held that since a coordinate bench had previously ruled the assessee did not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, no business income was taxable in India. Consequently, disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) were not applicable, and the reassessment for AY 2006-07 was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the payments made for manpower supply and outsourced call centre services did not fall under the purview of Section 194J as they were not of a technical or professional nature. Furthermore, since the service providers had already paid taxes on the amounts received, the assessee could not be treated as being in default.

The Tribunal held that the gain from the sale of the property should be treated as long-term capital gain. It directed the AO to compute the exemption as per the provisions of Section 54F of the Act and allow the benefit of indexation from the date of payment.

The Tribunal held that the gain from the sale of the property should be treated as long-term capital gain. It directed the AO to compute the exemption as per the provisions of Section 54F of the Act and allow the benefit of indexation from the date of payment.