DCIT Vs Bhaijee Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) In this From the records, it can be clearly seen that the notice has been issued prior to the approval. Thus, reopening u/s 148 is without the approval of the designated authority and as such reassessment itself is bad and without any jurisdiction. The mandatory conditions of […]
Assessee was diagnosed with Cancer in December, 2017 and the ld. CIT(A) passed the order on 20.03.2018, which is subsequent to the diagnosis of the illness, needless to mention that treatment of cancer is very painful and it is not possible to focus on other issues when he was under the treatment and therefore in our opinion, there is a reasonable cause for not fling the appeal within the due period and therefore we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay and accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
In the absence of any permission received from Pr. CIT or the CIT, there was no merit in the order of AO in making addition on an issue which was not the basis for selection of case under CASS.
M/s. Key Components (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) it is clear that there is a total non-application of mind on the part of the A.O. while recording the reasons for reopening of the assessment. He has recorded incorrect amount which escaped assessment. His conclusion was merely based on observations and information received from DIT […]
As a matter of fact, all infrastructure and process required for provision of bandwith services was always used and under the control of RJIPL, and the same was never given either to the assessee or to any other person availing the said services. We are persuaded to subscribe to the observations of the CIT(A) that as the process involved to provide the bandwith services was not a secret i.e IPR in the process was not owned/registered in the name of RJIPL, but was a standard commercial process that was followed by the industry players, therefore, the same could not be classified as a secret process which would have been required for characterizing the aforesaid payment made by the assessee to RJIPL as royalty under the India-Singapore DTAA.
DCIT Vs Savita Oil Technologies Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) A careful look at sub-section (1) of section 244A would reveal that it has three parts. The first part deals with the entitlement of a person to interest whenever he is due to get a refund from the Department. The second part relates to the method of […]
M/s. Wipro Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) In this case relief was allowed by learned CIT (A) in respect of levy of surcharge and cess by directing the AO that surcharge and cess should be levied only in the cases where the non resident vendors are residents of countries with which DTAA allows withholding rate […]
DCIT Vs M/s. BMR Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi) The AO in the assessment order was of the view that the amount of Rs. 1.78 crores paid by the assessee to its Director Mr. Sanjay Mehta, and claimed as bonus was not allowable in view of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act because the sum […]
We find that the issue in question, before us, is to decide whether there is any merit in rejection of books of account of the assessee by the AO and the applicability of method of accounting in the case of the assessee i.e. project completion method of accounting as adopted by the assessee vis a vis percentage completion method of accounting as held to be applicable by the revenue.
Mumtaz Hotels Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) CIT(A) opined that the said clothes were not protective ones and they are not uniforms and not compulsory uniform under the statute. We find that the employees’ uniforms have traditionally been used as a functional necessity. It is noted from the record that the assessee assumed the financial […]
