Bogus Capital gains- Order is against the principle of natural justice in as much as the order has been passed taking the statement of person as base, the copy of which is not made available to the assessee. Further, opportunity to cross examine the concerned person was also not provided to the assessee....

Consulting Engineering Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) It is true that noticed dated 21.11.2011 was for both the A.Ys i.e. 2008-09 and 2009-10. However, each A.Y is considered to be a separate unit and, therefore, for each A.Y, the Assessing Officer must bring out his case. A perusal of the said notice, […]...

M/s Eni India Ltd. Vs JCIT (ITAT Delhi) learned AO had taken a view that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC vs CIT & Anr. the nature of activities involved under the contract including the sale of services of HOEC are covered by the provisions of Section […]...

Harjeet Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) It can be seen that the Assessing Officer has proceeded on wrong assumption fact. The amount of Rs. 10 lacs is not supported by any cheque number whereas the allegation is that the assessee has received accommodation entry from Sh. Gupta through cheque. In my considered opinion the basis […]...

ACIT Vs M/s. Modi Rubber Limited (ITAT Delhi) Disallowance had been made on ad-hoc basis without pointing out any defects in assessee books or vouchers maintained for impugned expenses, and, the same was not, therefore, sustainable. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 20/01/2014...

ACIT Vs Shri Finance (ITAT Delhi) Quantum or total number of transactions may not be determinative but in a given case, keeping in view the period of holding may indicate intention to make investment. We also find that CBDT Circular no. 6 dated 29.02.2016 also comes to the aid of the assessee wherein it has […]...

Kirtiman Cements and Packaging Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Provisions of law on unabsorbed deprecation which is allowed as depreciation of current year under section 32(2) fall in section 71 and not under section 72, as such, allowable as ‘business expenditure’. Therefore, unabsorbed depreciation of current year and earlier y...

ACIT Vs Seema Devi Bansal (ITAT Delhi) Trade and commercial transactions are not covered in the definition of ‘loans and advances’ on which section 2(22)(e)  can be applied. When the company got back its funds on the same day, it could not fall into the definition of the deemed dividend. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT […]...

Delhi Tourism and Transport Development Corporation Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) It was obvious that if no deduction was claimed, there can be no question of disallowance under section 40(a)(i), therefore, matter was remitted to file of the AO for considering assessee’s claim about not having claimed any deduction for this sum in  computa...

DCIT Vs. M/s. Erawat Infotech Pvt.Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) In the instant case, the information is specific having detail of value of the amount of accommodation entry taken, the instrument and date through which entry was taken, name and account number of the entry provider were available before the Assessing Officer and thus we cannot hold t...