ITAT held in Haier Appliances India Ltd Vs DCIT and Haier Appliances India Ltd Vs ACIT after relying on the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt Ltd reported in (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Delhi) that the above transaction of AMP
ITAT Delhi held In the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Escorts Construction Equipment Ltd. that we find that this amount represents unpaid sales tax liability and the same was disclosed itself by the assessee as a contingent liability.
ITO Vs M/s Citizen Scales (I) P. Ltd. (ITAT MUMBAI)-The Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We note that in para 4 of the assessment order it has been categorically recorded that there was a mistake in computation of book profit and the same was pointed out by the Assessing Officer
The assessee in the present case is a Company, which is engaged in the business of trading in jewellery. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 01.11.2004 declaring a loss of 1,81,69,142/-.
ACIT Vs M/s. Tirupati Enterprises (ITAT KOLKATA) We hold that merely for non-prosecution of original document before the Assessing Officer during the remand proceedings, the transaction per se cannot be doubted with when the Xerox copies with supporting documents were duly furnished before the Assessing Officer.
M/s. Palco Distributors Vs. JCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Only premise of the AO for making addition is that assessee could not produce purchase bills for a sum of Rs.21,72,083/- having 526 items. We find that the items are properly recorded means the assessee has explained the source of acquisition
ITAT Chandigarh held In the case of ACIT vs. Ms. Harjinder Dhiman that time limit for deposit in capital gains scheme is to be taken as due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(4). In the instant case, the sale proceeds were deposited in the capital gains scheme on 05.02.2009
ITAT Delhi held In the case of JDIT vs. Mool Chand Kharaiti Ram Trust that Merely because, running of an Allopathic hospital is not specifically mentioned, it does not necessarily mean that the same would be ultra vires the objects
In the case of ACIT Vs. Rukamani Iyer Mumbai Bench of ITAT held that the claim has to be judged in the light of commercial expediency. Relying upon the judgment of CIT v Associated Electrical Agencies {2004} 266 ITR 63 (Mad.)
In the case of Travelport LP USA Vs. DDIT Delhi Bench of ITAT observed that assessee has a dependent agent in form of distributor in India and held that assessee has a business connection in India u/s 9(1) (i) of the act and its income is deemed to accrue or arise in India.
