Naveen Tyagi Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) HC held that if notice u/s 148 was not served on the assessee in accordance with law the reassessment made consequent thereto was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. In the case on hand as the Revenue could not prove the service of notice u/s 148 on the […]
Roshan Lal Verma Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The validity of impugned assessment order resulting in present appeal is under challenge on the grounds of notice issued under Section 143(2) purportedly barred by limitation. It is the case of the assessee that, in the instant case, assessee has filed the return of income on 14.10.2011 and […]
Jain Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Section 41 postulates disallowance of cessation of liability for expenditure incurred in trading account earlier. In the present case, disallowance has been made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on the plank that the purchases are not genuine. In our considered opinion, the issue […]
It is submitted on behalf of the assessee that the ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the notice dated 25.02.2013 issued u/s 274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not legally sustainable as it is not disclosed as to if the notice is issued for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of particular income.
Honble Delhi High Court considering the decision of the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Jet Airways (I) Limited (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) held that if the Assessing Officer does not make any addition on the primary ground on the basis of which proceedings under Section 147 were initiated he cannot make other additions.
The undisputed fact is that nothing has happened during the year under consideration, the impugned land was converted into stock in trade in earlier assessment year. It is not in dispute that the agreement between the assessee and Unitech is not an agreement for sale and it is not in dispute that there is no consideration.
Explore ITAT Delhi ruling in Sandeep Kumar Agarwal vs. ADIT, allowing employer deduction for EPF & ESIC, even if paid post EPF & ESIC due date but before income tax return deadline.
Rupal Jain Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) We notice that the assessee has not only discharged the primary onus by filing confirmation and the IT returns and balance sheet of the lenders, the assessee is also stated to have paid interest in most of the cases and deducted TDS thereon. Noticiably, the lenders are the family […]
Explore the Madhav Kumar Swarup vs. ACIT case where the attribution of credit card expenditure is contested. Detailed analysis and conclusions provided.
ITAT held that excise duty subsidy and interest subsidies given in pursuant of new industrial policy were held to be capital receipts.
