Amendment in section 37(1) of the Act has been introduced w.e.f. 1st April, 2015 and does not apply on the facts of the case and the disabling provision as stated in Explanation 2 to section 37(1) refers only to such corporate social responsibility expenditure as u/s. 135 of the Companies Act, 2013
Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) This is not disputed by the Revenue as the TPO in order dated 21.10.2011 considered Vivek Limited as appropriate comparable for benchmarking AMP expenses, applying Bright Line Test. The TPO considered Vivek Limited as comparable as it is trader/re-seller of home appliances and does not own […]
ACIT Vs Shiv Offset India Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Indore) In the instant case the Ld. A.O had passed the original assessment taking into consideration of all the documents and facts of the case and again he had reopened the case without bringing out any fresh material on record and thus there was a mere change […]
Supertron Electronics Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) The admitted fact is that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee for both the assessment years. Only a notice u/s 148 and Section 143(2)(1) of the Act was issued. Under these circumstances we have to hold that the assessment orders for […]
Addition was made merely on the basis of whatsapp messages and the statement recorded from section 132(4) from Shri Lanka Anil Kumar which was subsequently retracted. Therefore we are of the view that the addition made by the AO is unsustainable.
ACIT Vs Deccan Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Visakhapatnam) We find from the orders of the lower authorities that the basis for additional income was only estimation but not supported by any evidence. Even the department failed to substantiate the industry average of purification loss with authenticated documentary evidences. The assessee submitted that the additional income […]
Settlement received from the Government of India was not coming under the purview of the business income as there was no business during the period and income which had not accrued to assessee could not be termed as business income.
DCIT Vs Ebony Retail Holdings Ltd. (Delhi ITAT) It is not in dispute that assessee has given security deposit for taking the premises on lease. Learned Counsel for the Assessee referred to various replies filed by assessee-company at assessment stage which shows that assessee-company filed all the documentary evidences and explanation before A.O. on the […]
DCIT Vs Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd (ITAT Cuttack) In this case there is nothing to suggest that all the primary facts were not disclosed by the assessee at the time of original assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act nor any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly […]
BT Global Communications India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (Delhi ITAT) The only issue to be decided in the present appeal relates to protective adjustment on account of business restructuring that has taken place in assessment year 2010-11. We find that TPO/DRP have made adjustment on substantive basis in assessment year 2010-11. However, since […]
