Lal Construction Company Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) During the assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the of the Income Tax Act [Act], the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that there is a difference between the total receipts offered to tax by the assessee and the receipts reflected in Form-26AS. The AO after hearing the assessee, considered the turnover […]
The issue under consideration is whether submitting additional claims before tribunal, which is not claim in return of income will be sustain in law?
The issue under consideration is whether the activities involved towards promotion of handloom sector is eligible for exemption under section 11 and 12 of Income Tax Act?
DLF Ltd. Vs. JCIT (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Deduction of Rs. 1.78 Billion in respect of profits derived on account of development considerations of bare shells would constitute profits and gains derived from business of developing any Special Economic Zone within the meaning of Section 80 IAB and was allowable to DLF Limited. Held: Assessee-company was […]
In this case, since there was a Family Settlement between the assessee and three brothers and they have acted upon Family Settlement Deed and distributed various properties among themselves and necessary rights and title are transferred in favour of each brother would show that parties have entered into genuine transaction.
Parag Gupta Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The issue in the present ground is with respect to addition of Rs. 2,70,000/- on account of unexplained jewellery. It is the contention of the learned AR that if the correct quantity of jewellary (i.e. 671.53 gms is considered instead of 771.83 gms) and if the credit for jewellery […]
Joseph Davaraj Koilpillai Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Deduction on account of bad debt as allowed u/s 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2), after amendment by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act 1987, envisage merely wiring off the debt as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee as a condition for such an allowance. Before the amendment […]
Nabh Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) There is no dispute that during previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration the assessee issued 37,500 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each for a price of Rs. 200/- each which includes the share premium of Rs. 190/- per share. To substantiate the value of equity […]
Benchmarking of cost to cost reimbursement of expenses was not within the jurisdiction of the TPO while computing the arm’s length price of the international transaction u/s 92CA of the Act.
Approach of the learned transfer pricing officer of determining ALP of international transaction of incurring of higher AMP expenditure cannot be benchmarked either on Bright line test bases or on transactional net margin method unless first it is established that there existed an international transaction. Accordingly all the grounds of the appeal of the assessee relating to the transfer pricing adjustment are allowed.
