ACIT Vs. DJ Infrastructure Dev Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT DELHI) AO made additions on account of unexplained sources of expenses on the basis of some documents found during search proceedings u/s 132 on Gopal Zarda Group. On seized documents some details of expenses and payment of share premium is mentioned.
ITO Vs. Facor Power Ltd. (ITAT DELHI) AO made addition on account of interest earned on FDRs put in bank for procurement of capital asset by holding that no such capital assets is acquired by assessee during the year under consideration.
DDIT (Ex) Vs. Gideons International In India (ITAT HYDERABAD) The assessee in this case is a registered society who paid salary to its director along with some perks in addition to the basic salary. AO doubted that excessive salary has been paid to the director and he made addition of excessive salary than the salary mentioned in the appointment letter.
The ITAT Mumbai in the case of Mckinsey Business Consultants Vs. DDIT held that if there is no clause in DTAA to tax fees for technical services (FTS) then the same is taxable as business profits provided the income is earned by assessee through a PE in India.
The ITAT Kolkata in the case of DCIT Vs. Trade Apartment Ltd. held that the delay in filling appeal cannot be condoned if the same is attributable to gross negligence and inaction on the part of revenue.
The ITAT Mumbai in the case of M/s Steller Developers P. Ltd. held that if the letting out of property is with intention to commercially exploit and it is the main object of assessee company then income from such leasing/letting is assessable under business head and not as house property.
ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of M/s. Parshwa Corporation Vs. DCIT observed the basic necessities & condition for issuing notice u/s 153 C and it was held that it is mandatory to follow the procedure prescribed under the section i.e. (1) Satisfaction is to be recorded by the Assessing Officer of the persons searched;
ITAT Chennai held In the case of The Continental Enterprise vs. ITO that as per explanation 1 to sec.32, where any business or profession is carried on in a leased building and any capital expenditure incurred for business or profession on the construction of any structure or doing any work in
In the case of ACIT Vs. M/s Supersonic Turner Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Bench of ITAT have held that where ESI/PF received from the employees was deposited late but before the due date of filing return of income u/s 139 (1) the amount cannot be disallowed u/s 43B or 36 (1) (va).
ITAT Mumbai has held in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Venus Jewel that Loss on account of forward contract entered into by the assessee to hedge against the loss arising on account of fluctuations in foreign exchange is an allowable deduction.
