The reasons recorded in the instant case are vague and based on un-substantive reasoning, uncorroborated material and lack of evidence and hence as per decisions of the jurisdictional High Court referred above, the reasons referred above tantamount to be based on borrowed satisfaction and according to our considered view, does not sound valid reasons in the eyes of law, for reopening of the case.
Ld. FAA was correct in following the ratio laid by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Jatia Investment Co. Ltd. V. CIT(1994) 206 ITR 718 (Cal), that fictitious entry not backed up by funds may not be taxable as Cash Credit.
The law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the dictum : vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt. The delay cannot be condoned simply because the assessee’s case is hard and calls for sympathy or merely out of benevolence to the party seeking relief in granting the indulgence and to the party seeking relief.
Lufthansa German Airlines Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The question is whether the User Development Fee (UDF) collection charges paid by AAI to the Lufthansa German Airlines (Assessee) is income derived from operation of aircraft not liable to tax in India as per Article 8 of DTAA between India and Germany. As the effective management of […]
ITAT Held that sales tax subsidy is capital receipt mistakenly offered by the assessee as income is mistake apparent on record. Accordingly, appropriate relief/ refund available to assessee.
Jeyaraman Senthil Kumar Vs DCIT (ITAT CHENNAI) On perusal of the appellate order, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has given several opportunities and the assessee could not appear before the ld. CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond his control being COVID-19 pandemic period. Hence, we are of the opinion that one more opportunity should be […]
Mohideen Sharif Inayathulla Sharif Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) Ground- The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai failed to independently apply his mind that the village in which this land is situated is more than 5 kilometers from the nearest municipal limits. A mere misstatement or confusion with regard to the identical name of 2 villages […]
Sh. Sanjay Jain Vs PCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) In the present set of cases, AO asked the assessees to furnish the relevant details relating to Long Term Capital Gain, Short Term Capital Gain, exemption u/s 10(36) of the Act, deduction u/s 57 of the Act and unsecured loans and the assessees furnished all the relevant documents […]
Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Banagalore) Ld. TPO thus applied the TNMM as the MAM and determined ALP which resulted in adjustment of Rs. 10,19,77,372/- to the Manufacturing Segment. The assessee filed objection before the DRP agains the proposed adjustment. However the DRP upheld the order of Ld. TPO by observing that in […]
Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai) The submissions of Ld. AR are that warranty expenditure is part of overall sales obligations and the expenditure is reimbursed on actual basis. The warranty obligation being part and parcel of sales transactions and therefore, the same could not be held to be ‘fees for technical […]
