DCIT Vs. S.V.S Prop mart Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Assessing Officer has mentioned in the Assessment order about the submissions made by the assessee that the commission was not received by the assessee company on account of dispute with the said party. Since the commission income has not been settled and crystallized, the same has […]
It is not for the TPO to decide the best business strategy for the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court also held that This whimsical fixation by the TPO amounts to an arbitrary and unbridled exercise of power.
Mr. Tushar Kothari Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The intention behind enacting provisions of Section 2(22)(e) is that closely held companies (i.e. companies in which public are not substantially interested), which are controlled by a group of members, even though the company has accumulated profits would not distribute such profit as dividend because if so distributed […]
ACIT Vs. Sh. Vineet Kumar Kapila (ITAT Delhi) ITAT held that booking of flat with the builder has to be treated as construction of flat by the assessee and hence period of three years would apply for construction of new house from the date of transfer of long term capital asset. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has […]
Once assessee had invested sale proceeds of existing asset for the purpose of construction of new house within the time period specified under section 54F he could not be denied the benefit under the section, even if the assessee finally could not construct the new house within the specified period of three years.
At the outset, Learned A. R. submitted that assessee is running a school and had been claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(iii) and now the assessee had applied for registration u/s 12AA which the CIT (Exemptions) has refused relying on the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act.
Refund under section 244A(1)(b) of the Act on self assessment tax is to be paid from the date of payment of self assessment tax till the date of grant of refund.
Dis allowance under section 40(a)(ia) on the ground that the assessee had failed to deduct the tax at source on payment made was not justified as the recipient had already paid the taxes on the sources of income and due certificate was also furnished by the assessee.
Understand the scope of Section 153A in the case of Anurag Dalmia Vs DCIT. Analysis of unabated assessments, incriminating material, and additions made post-search.
The Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has ruled that date of possession is not material fact for deciding the period of holding to Compute Short Term or Long Term Capital Gain.
