Uttam Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Assessee had filed its return of income under Section 139(1) on 13.09.2013. Thus, as per proviso to Section 143(2) of the Act, as it existed prior to its amendment by Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01.06.2016, no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act shall be served on […]
ACIT Vs GP Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) In so far as bench marking the international transactions using customs data is concerned we sustain the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) as the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Coastal Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) held […]
EY Global Services Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT finds itself in agreement with the submissions made by the ld. DR for the Revenue. AO has only followed the ruling of AAR in assessee’s own case and as per the provisions of section 245S of the Act, ruling of Hon’ble AAR is binding upon the […]
South West Pinnacle Exploration Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Rectification under section 154 of the Act can only be made when glaring mistake of fact or law has been committed by the officer passing the order becomes apparent from the record. Rectification is not possible if the question is debatable. Moreover, the point which was […]
Bistro Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Disallowance of Rs.4,00,000/- was made by the AO on adhoc basis on the ground that the amounts claimed under the expenses are neither fully vouched nor fully verifiable, so it cannot be said that the same are wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business. The […]
Praveen Kumar Chauhan Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Revenue submitted that the assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposits. The only contention of the assessee before the authorities below was that the amount was received as a gift from his father. He submitted that the assessee has merely filed an affidavit. However, creditworthiness of […]
Merely because assessment order is cryptic one without discussing in detail nature of enquiry conducted and evidences furnished by assessee, it cannot be said that order is erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue.
Overlooking the mandatory provision of law in the original assessment is apparent mistake of law which is rectifiable under section 154.
The amount once invested in the capital gain scheme cannot be brought to tax in the year of investment itself without considering the utilization within the period allowed under the said scheme.
.In the reason for delay in filing the appeal the appellant has stated that Advocate was busy in filing the GST returns and forgot to file the said appeal.
