Vijay Sachdev Vs JCIT (ITAT Delhi) It is well settled law that non-consideration of decision of Jurisdictional High Court is mistake apparent from record. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, therefore, rightly contended that Ld.CIT(A) did not follow the judgement of the Jurisdictional High Court and shall have to rectify the mistake in his order in […]
Where AO had directly made the disallowance under section 14A by abruptly rejecting workings of assessee without having any cogent reason to deny the claim made by the assessee no expenditure was incurred for earning exempt income, the disallowance was deleted.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the action of the A.O. in making an addition of Rs. 2,,88,65,116/- treating the capital gain arising as a result of sale of flat No. 1807, Ashok Towers, Mumbai, as short term capital gain
This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar (‘CIT(A)’, for short) dated 05.10.2016, partly allowing the assessee’s appeal contesting its assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’, hereinafter) dated 12.10.2015 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14
M/s Outworks Solutions [P] Ltd Vs JCIT (ITAT Delhi) No doubt, the assessee claimed write off as bed debt but it is equally true that the assessee did explain the sequence of events which prompted it for the said write off. There is no denying that the assessee does not fulfill the conditions mandated in […]
Dhirendra Pal Singh Institute Vs JCIT (ITAT Agra) The receiver of the donations has maintained the register of donors indicating the names and addresses of the donors and their identity as well in the form of Voter Card, Bank account, etc. The CIT (A) has found and opined in his order that these donations have been […]
M/s. Nov Sara India Pvt. Ltd Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) Software development expenditure which was held to be capital expenditure by the Assessing Officer holding that it has given a benefit of enduring nature to the assessee. The claim of the assessee is that same is a license fee and, therefore, it cannot be […]
The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, Mumbai, dated 20.04.2016, for A.Ys 2006-07 and 2007-08, which in itself arises from the orders passed by the A.O under Sec. 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income-tax act, 1961 (for short „Act‟), each dated 14.03.2014. That as certain common issues are involved in the appeals, therefore, they are taken up and disposed of by way of a consolidate order. We shall first take up the appeal for A.Y. 2006-07, wherein the assessee assailing the order of the CIT(A) had raised before us the following grounds of appeal
These appeals are filed by the Revenue and cross objections by assessee against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 21, Mumbai dated 16.06.2016 for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2012-13.
The AO further relies on the shop increase of 31000% of the value of shares over the period of 2 years. Though this is highly suspicious, it cannot take the place of evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated that suspicion however strong cannot be the basis for making an addition.
