The assessee was required to prove identity of creditors, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of creditors. The assessee grossly failed to do so. Therefore, in the absence of the supporting evidences regarding claim of unsecured loans, we do not see any infirmity in the finding of authorities below.
Total estimated construction cost the percentage of the completion works out to 24.89% which is less than the 25%, being the limit prescribed for recognition of Revenue.
Assessee submitted medical certificate justifying delay. Accordingly held that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of appeal before the CIT(A) by the assessee.
DCIT Vs Tirupati Udyog Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) It is the case of the assessee that Section 68 applies only to the credit/ receipts entered in the books during the Financial Year in question and its operation is not extended to other assessment years. This position is fortified by plethora of judicial precedents including CIT vs. […]
Garg Acrylics Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) It is the case of the assessee that reference made to the TPO in the instant case without fulfilling the conditions of threshold of Rs.5 crore monetary limit is without the sanction of law in view of the Section 92BA of the Act. This being so, the […]
Mr. Mohan Sambhaji Jagthap Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Appreciating the material on record it can be observed that the Tax Authorities have not doubted the assertion of the Assessee that the father in law was resident of Canada or he held land. When this fact is admitted, the Revenue needed to conduct some enquiry and […]
Sumo Advertises Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) A perusal of the assessment order reveals that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the Id. AO asked the appellant to establish the credits appearing in its books of account. However, no details were filed by the latter. As per the provisions of section 68, the […]
Mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, would not, ipso facto, amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of Income
Provisions of Section 194C are not applicable on payments to agencies like HUDA on behalf of the State Government. The imposition of penalty under Section 271C was consequently found to be unsustainable in the absence of default of Section 194C of the Act.
DSOB Class of 64 Charitable Trust Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Learned counsel submitted that the addition was made on account of non-furnishing of the audit report in form 10B through electronic mode. Learned counsel submitted that the learned CIT(Appeals) has noted the fact that return of income was filed on 31.08.2018 and the audit report […]
