Barco Electronic Systems (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) We have noted that the assessee is not charging interest on overdue debts from the third parties and also the assessee is a debt free company and not paying any interest on funds utilized is business. We have also noted that the assessee company has a […]
Transcend MT Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Assessee has also argued for exclusion of Infosys BPO Ltd, which is having the turnover more than 31.29 times, and TCS E serve Ltd having turnover of 62 times larger than the assessee does. Therefore, for the reasons given by us for exclusion of I gate […]
The issue under consideration is whether addition made by AO for the cash gifts found in search which is received at the time of marriage and anniversary and cash for cancer treatment is justified in law?
Japan International Co-operation Agency (JICA) Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) A.O. as well as Ld. CIT(A) have taken a wrong view by holding that the assessee cannot grow tax-free income u/ss 10(34) and 10(35) of the Acts unless additional tax has been paid as per the provisions of Sections 115-0 and 115-R of the Act and […]
The issue under consideration is whether rejection of method of accounting under section 145 without even examination of books of assessee is justified in law?
The issue under consideration is whether to acquire jurisdiction under section 153C is it require that the seized documents must be incriminating and must relate to the assessment year whose assessment were sought to be reopened?
The issue under consideration is whether the CIT (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming the addition as made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of gifts u/s 68? Addition u/s 68 Justified for Unexplained Gifts Received from Non Related Donor.
ITAT Delhi decision on Amadeus IT vs. Asstt. DIT. CRS income, PE attribution, and distribution fee. Assessing Officer’s findings challenged.
Bombardier Transportation Sweden AB Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Payment of consideration would be regarded as ‘fee for technical/included services’ only if the twin test of rendering services and making technical knowledge available at the same time was satisfied. Intermediary services rendered by assessee did not make available any technical knowledge, skill etc to BTIN […]
The issue under consideration is whether the re-opening of assessment is valid even if there is no addition on subject-matter being basis for issuing notice under section 148, rather AO made addition on other counts?
