Kalra Papers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted, where the Assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well-accepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings. […]
T P D 101 Uthangarai Milk- Producers Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) The assessee supposed to have been filed audit report as required u/s.44AB of the Act, on or before 31.10.2015. However, such audit report has been filed on 05.03.2016, which is before the date of completion of assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the […]
ACIT Vs Ecocat India Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) There is no quarrel on the proposition that the DSIR has approved the weighted deduction for capital expenses. Those expenses were in a sum of Rs. 2,97,57,596/- which is acknowledged in the assessment order by the AO. What has not been permitted u/s 35(2AB) of the Act […]
Church’s Auxiliary For Social Action Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In the case of India Brand Equity Foundation vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (E), Trust, Ward-II, New Delhi [(2012) 23 com 323 (Del)] it was held that amount spent outside India for participating in a fare held outside India cannot be treated as application of […]
Sneh Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) As per the AO, the assessee has not filed return of income and hence notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued owing to cash transactions exceeding Rs.10,00,000/-. The AO held that the assessee has not given any details with regard to the […]
S.K. Agarwal (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) It is an admitted fact that during the AY 2015-16, the assessee HUF sold a plot of land and earned capital gain which it claimed exempt under section 54F as the assessee purchased a residential house. The only cause of denial of exemption by the Revenue is that […]
Assessee has assigned reasons for condoning delay is that, Assessment order been misplaced by Advocate & not handed over the same to assessee
Held that it is well settled law that, the sale of software product which will not giving rise to royalty income.
Focus Product Scheme (FPS) was first introduced with the objective to incentivize export of such products which have high export intensity/ employment potential, so as to offset infrastructure inefficiencies and other associated costs involved in marketing of these products.
Held that broker pledged the shares of the clients with banks for obtaining bank finance. It is not justified to take value of shares pledged as undisclosed investment of the broker.
