Sh. Jasdeep Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has furnished all the vouchers. He submitted that the Assessing Officer remarked that vouchers of Rs.5,31,271/- of Taj Mahal Hotel were not furnished is totally wrong as the same was duly furnished and there is no specific defect pointed […]
As per explanation a to section 56 (2)(viib) of Income Tax Act it has been specifically provided that fair market value of shares shall be based on (1) value determined under rule 11UA or (2) fair market value of under lying assets whichever is higher.
Bhavmeet Singh Bhatia Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) AO noted that the assessee has not filed the return of income for AY 2011-12 whereas the copy of the return of income available in assessee’s paper book clearly reveals that the assessee did file the return of income for AY 2011-12. It is also clearly discernible that […]
It is well settled that no one should be condemned unheard. Therefore, principle of natural justice should be given due consideration while adjudicating the tax dispute.
ITAT Delhi held that locker being in joint names and first name was indicative of real ownership and hence the assessment of the contents of the locker should be rightly done in the hands of the first owner of the locker.
ITAT Delhi held that management fees paid to AE is not chargeable to tax in India in terms with Article 12(4) of India-USA DTAA and hence disallowance of the same u/s 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act for non-deduction of TDS is unsustainable in law.
It was held that there can be two initial assessment years and the year in which there was substantial expansion that year is the initial assessment year within the period of 10 years for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 80-IC of the Act.
Satish Kumar Contractor Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the AO was not justified in making the addition on substantive basis in the hands of the assessee. He submitted that the assessee had filed a Supplementary Partnership Deed which clarified about the liability of the assessee firm. It was further […]
Additions made on ad-hoc basis on estimation does not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act as there is no conclusive proof of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
ITAT Delhi rules in favor of Amar Singh. Deletion of Rs. 2,23,000 addition under Section 69A. CBDT Instruction applied for demonetization period cash deposits.
