ITAT Chandigarh dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue since the tax effect involved in the same is less than prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 60 lacs in terms of the CBDT Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024.
ITAT Delhi held that addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act on protective basis not justified since assessee established genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of entity from which share application money is received.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards entire cash deposits during demonetization period by passing ex-parte order due to non-compliance by assessee without examining on merits unjustified. Accordingly, matter restored back to AO for fresh examination.
The present appeal is preferred by the revenue. The only issue in this appeal of the Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting addition made by the AO towards unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act in respect of trade payable settled outside books of accounts.
The controversy in the present appeal relates to inclusion of an entity named E4e Healthcare Business Services Private Limited, as a comparable entity for benchmarking the international transaction of provision of IT-enabled services.
Putting together a structure of plywood sheets cannot be construed as constructing a residential house. The Inspector had also reported that there was no electricity or water connection on the land and electricity was used by genset.
No deduction under the Head “Provident Fund” is permissible in the above provisions and I therefore, hold that the taxable value of Rs.22,93,296/- for which deduction has been claimed by the party is part of the value of taxable services and is not allowed.
The respondent on the other hand is of the view that the perpetual transfers being permanent rather not temporary, the show cause notices proposing to levy tax and the impugned orders of adjudication levying tax are without jurisdiction.
Delhi High Court held that appeal pertaining to period prior to 01 April 2005 is maintainable under Section 81 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (DVAT) instead of section 45 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 since appeal is preferred after 01 April 2005.
CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal and directed the AO to re-compute the “Income From Other Sources” after deducting the amount of Rs 24,25,426/-u/s 57(iii) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
