Addl. CIT Vs TV Today Network Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The Ground in respect of deleting disallowance of Rs. 56,20,737/- u/s 14A of the Act on the ground that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed exempt income. The issue involved in Ground No. 2 is also decided in favour of the assessee in ITA No. 7277/Del/2018 for […]
Surender Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The assessee has suffered an assessment order dated 14/12/2016, but the assessee has challenged the same before the CIT(A) with a delay of 224 days. It is the case of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) for condoning the delay is ‘that the assessee was under the impression that his […]
Mere registration at later date would not cover a transaction already executed in the earlier years and substantial obligations have already been discharged and a substantive right has accrued to the assessee therefrom.
ITAT Pune rules in favor of Sanjay Dattatraya Dapodikar. Section 56(2)(vii)(b) not applicable in 2015, stamp value on 2008 agreement considered.
Ashutosh Jha (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Ranchi) Where assessee purchased a property and made part payment of sale consideration by cheque on very next day of execution of purchase agreement and registry was done after a year, since such part payment made by cheque on very next day of execution of agreement was towards fulfilment […]
Mohd. Ilyas Ansari Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Assessing Officer mechanically applied provisions of section 56(2) to difference between stamp duty value and actual sale consideration paid by assessee and made additions, without making any efforts to find out actual cost of property, additions made by Assessing Officer were to be set aside. In this case […]
ITAT Delhi held that income tax exemption shall be available to the Defence Forces Personnel who have been invalidated from service on account of bodily disability while in service.
ITAT Mumbai held that activities of the appellant-society directed towards the benefit of investors and potential investors forming part of the general public which are note limited to the benefit of its members is eligible for deduction u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
ITAT Bangalore held that AO allowed the claim of assessee after due application of mind and on proper consideration of the material available on record. Therefore, the order of Ld. CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act cannot be sustained.
ITAT Delhi held that the main purpose of incurring of huge AMP expenses has largely benefited assessee in India, with an incidental benefit arising to foreign AE. Hence, it is very difficult to accept existence of an international transaction.
