The return of income was filed on 31.10.2005 at an income of Rs. 4,04,020/- for AY 2005-06. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO took note of the fact that the assessee and his wife purchased property at front and rear side of portion at ground floor for a consideration of 40 Lakh each and 3,20,000 was paid as stamp duty on each portion.
In the case of M/s. Equant Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT Delhi Bench of ITAT remanded back the matter and held that DRP has not met the contention of the assessee in respect of inclusion/exclusion of comparable in its order.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO that there is no dispute that for purchasing the property at Munirka for a consideration of Rs.9,37,33,600, the assessee had taken loan from HDFC Bank for Rs.6.50 crores on which the authorities below have allowed the interest paid by the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Avaya India (P) Ltd. vs ACIT that a perusal of the annual report of company reveals that the said company has made income from sale of license to the tune of more than Rs.1 crore,
M/s Bridal Jewellery Mfg. Co.Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee was engaged in the manufacturing of jewellery, during the process of manufacturing on behalf of the customers
The ITAT Delhi in the case of Digital Radio Broadcasting Ltd. held that the migration from one phase to another phase cannot be considered as transfer of license awarded under phase I particularly when the license agreement restrict any type of transfer or assignment of license or rights thereunder.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of Ami Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that the assessee has explained one to one nexus namely cash funds received from sale of Bangalore property, and its utilization for Pune property.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of Zee Media Corporation Limited vs. DCIT that regarding the nature of the news items purchased, we find it is in the common knowledge of every citizen that the news items do not have enduring benefit.
In the case of DCIT Vs. Claas India Pvt. Ltd. Delhi Bench of ITAT have denied to approve the method adopted by AO/TPO in allowing capacity adjustments. ITAT further held that once the law enjoins for doing a particular thing in a particular manner alone
In the case of Advance India Projects Ltd. Vs. ACIT Delhi bench of ITAT have held that assessment upon a dissolved company is impermissible as there is no provision in Income-tax Act, 1961 to make an assessment thereupon.
