ITAT Delhi

Addition not allowed if based solely on Third Party Statement & if his Cross Examination not allowed by AO

Ram Niwas Gupta Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

We do not have any hesitation is holding that when the addition is made solely on the basis of statement the third party and revenue does not have any other evidences, then without granting opportunity of cross examination , such addition cannot be made....

Read More

ITAT confirms addition for cash deposited during demonetization

Leela Devi Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)

Leela Devi Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) It is not in dispute that assessee made cash deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs in her bank account during demonetization period. The assessment year under appeal is 2017-18 and the assessee deliberately filed the return of income belatedly on 25.03.2018. The assessee explained before AO the source of the […]...

Read More

ITAT deletes substantive & protective additions for AMP expenditure

Amadeus India Pvt Ltd Vs A.C.I.T (ITAT Delhi)

Amadeus India Pvt Ltd Vs A.C.I.T (ITAT Delhi) This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 29.10.2018 framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’ for short] pertaining to A.Y 2014-15. 2. The grievance of the assessee can be summarised as under: 1) [&hel...

Read More

CSR expenses by Govt Companies under Govt directions allowable

RITES Limited Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi)

RITES Limited Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) Perusal of the assessment orders goes to prove that AO has mechanically disallowed the claim of expenditure made by the assessee company towards Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and sustainable development without analyzing the fact that assessee company being a Government undertaking is requir...

Read More

Rule 8D is not retrospective & applicable from AY 2008-09 onwards

Hero Motocorp Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

Hero Motocorp Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In the present year, the Assessing Officer has made disallowance under section 14A by invoking provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Since Rule 8D is not retrospective, the same is not applicable in the present assessment year and accordingly, we hold that the assessing […]...

Read More

Purchases not become Bogus merely for non-production of Parties

ACIT Vs. M/s GTM Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)

ACIT Vs. M/s GTM Builders & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)  As per accounting standards AS-7, the purchases and working progress have to be reconciled along with architect report. The AO has not rejected the books of accounts and accepted the book profits while making the addition. The Assessing Officer’s observation that none of...

Read More

Exempt income cannot be taxed merely for not mentioning in ITR ‘Schedule EI’

Goodwill Management Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)

Goodwill Management Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The assessee, out of ignorance or inadvertence has omitted to mention the details of exempt income in the relevant ‘Schedule EI’. So, the ignorance of the assessee or inadvertent mistake committed by the assessee should not come in his way in claiming exemption, which is o...

Read More

Expense cannot be disallowed merely for non-production of vouchers by employees

Hero Motocorp Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

Hero Motocorp Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Regarding Ground No. 16 relating to disallowance of reimbursement of foreign travelling expenses to directors/employees amounting to 7.38 crores, the Ld. AR submitted that the disallowance was made on the ground of non-submission of evidence/proof of actual expenses incurred by employees. It was subm...

Read More

Section 271(1)(c) Penalty without Specifying The Limb Is Invalid

Elite Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

Elite Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) As regards penalty order, firstly, the correct limb was not struck off or rather indicated by the Assessing Officer in the notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and hence the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in case of M/s Sahara India Life Insurance […]...

Read More

No Section 271AAA penalty on ad-hoc addition based on average GP rate

Ace Steel Fab (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

M/s Ace Steel Fab (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)  In the present appeal, the only addition made in the income was of Rs.11,52,300/- on account of estimation of Gross Profit @ 68%. It is the contention of the assessee that the discrepancy in stock was due to malfunction in the ERP software. Though, this […]...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (5,324)
Company Law (7,113)
Custom Duty (8,397)
DGFT (4,507)
Excise Duty (4,467)
Fema / RBI (4,616)
Finance (4,886)
Income Tax (36,556)
SEBI (3,902)
Service Tax (3,695)

Search Posts by Date

April 2021