Delhi High Court held In the case of DIT vs. Royal Jordanian Airlines that section 44BBA is not charging provision, but only a machinery provision; it cannot preclude an Assessee from producing books of accounts to show that in any particular AY there is no taxable income. In other words
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Provestment Securities Pvt. Ltd. that we are inclined to agree with the Tribunal that the question whether an investment had been made or not is a matter of fact and the same cannot be presumed.
Delhi High Court held In the case of: CIT vs. Suman Dhamija that in the present case the Assessee is justified in contending that although award has been made and the compensation payable has been enhanced, the amount itself is in dispute, that dispute is pending in the Court.
The facts of the case are that the Assessee, (who died during the pendency of this appeal and is substituted by her legal representatives) was a housewife, having no source of income other than the pension of her deceased husband. The Assessee was the owner of property No. F-23, Hauz Khas, New Delhi wherein she was residing since 1956.
CIT Vs. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investment Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Assessee has indeed discharged its onus of proving the creditworthiness and genuineness of the lender (TIL). There was no requirement in law for the Assessee to prove the genuineness and credit worthiness of the sub- creditor, which is in this case was TCL.
While hearing an appeal filed by Dabur India Ltd Promoter Pradip Burman in Black Money case related to undisclosed Bank Account maintained Outside India, Delhi High Court held that prosecution can be launched against him as at the time of commission of alleged offence
CIT Vs. Sharda Sinha (Delhi High Court) The Court concurs with the conclusion of the CIT (A) that the sum paid to the Assessee was to compensate for the abrupt loss of source of income and that the termination of contract had fatally injured the appellant’s only source of income for the last 20 years.
The assessment under Section 143(3) was originally done on 19.12.2008. The notice under Section 148, which is impugned herein, has been issued beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year.
. CIT Vs. Bharti Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) As far as Rule 8D (2) (i) is concerned, the AO has necessarily to record that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the expenditure made by the Assessee in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income.
In the case of Ameriprise India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT Delhi Bench of ITAT held that the AO was not justified in considering forex loss as non-operating cost as against the assessee’s claim of operating cost. ITAT further held that the amount of foreign exchange gain/loss arising out of revenue transactions is required to be considered as an item of operating revenue/cost
