Purchase and sale of shares were arranged transactions to create bogus capital short term capital loss in the garb of real transactions with the sole motive to claim short term capital loss so as to evade tax. Hence the same was not allowable under section 28.
Assessee submitted medical certificate justifying delay. Accordingly held that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of appeal before the CIT(A) by the assessee.
It is normal presumption that, if the deposits have been made from the cash balance available in the books of accounts, then the sources of the cash would stand explained and hence, there is no necessity to treat it as unexplained deposits warranting addition.
DCIT Vs Tirupati Udyog Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) It is the case of the assessee that Section 68 applies only to the credit/ receipts entered in the books during the Financial Year in question and its operation is not extended to other assessment years. This position is fortified by plethora of judicial precedents including CIT vs. […]
Garg Acrylics Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) It is the case of the assessee that reference made to the TPO in the instant case without fulfilling the conditions of threshold of Rs.5 crore monetary limit is without the sanction of law in view of the Section 92BA of the Act. This being so, the […]
ITAT held that Referral commission paid to doctors in Violation of the professional conduct is Not allowable as Business Expenditure.
Mr. Mohan Sambhaji Jagthap Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Appreciating the material on record it can be observed that the Tax Authorities have not doubted the assertion of the Assessee that the father in law was resident of Canada or he held land. When this fact is admitted, the Revenue needed to conduct some enquiry and […]
Sumo Advertises Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) A perusal of the assessment order reveals that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the Id. AO asked the appellant to establish the credits appearing in its books of account. However, no details were filed by the latter. As per the provisions of section 68, the […]
Mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, would not, ipso facto, amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of Income
Provisions of Section 194C are not applicable on payments to agencies like HUDA on behalf of the State Government. The imposition of penalty under Section 271C was consequently found to be unsustainable in the absence of default of Section 194C of the Act.
