Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT deleted addition made u/s 68 for alleged bogus LTCG of Rs.56,43,084/- on merits holding that Ld AO failed to bring any cogent material in addition to report of Directorate of Investigation Kolkata about Jamakharchi /Penny stock companies and convert its reasons into a fact , thereby […]
Whether CIT is correct in allowing expenditure on advertisement & sales promotion of product & brand promotion by considering it as Revenue in nature?
Whether CIT(A) is correct in deleting the penalty levied u/s 221(1) by the AO on the ground that assessee has paid the self assessment after the date of filling of return of income?
Whether the AO was correct in denying the exemption u/s 11 to the assessee against Purchase of Land and FLAT in preparation to establishing a university and not in the nature of any ‘real estate’ operation ?
The issue under consideration is whether TDS under section 194H is applicable from payment of bank guarantee commission to the bank?
As per Explanation 2 attached to section 9(1)(vii) of the Act in the case of remittance or reimbursement of expenses where no element of taxable income in India is found, then the question of tax deduction at source does not arise.
No disallowance of interest can be made u/s 14A if the assessee’s own capital is more than the investments fetching exempt income. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 630 (Guj).
New Delhi Television Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) On examination of the facts it is apparent that assessee has sold shares which were purchased by it before 13 months of a company and subsequently sold at substantially higher price to the associate concern of the assessee and disclosed the same as capital gain. It is […]
Lease Plan India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In the present case apparently, AE has not provided any capital to the appellant on which income is earned. It is a corporate guarantee , being a surety to the lender bank of the appellant that, if in a case, in future, the appellant fails to […]
Transactions carried out through current account for business purposes would not fall within the definition of Deemed Dividend. Therefore provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961, would not apply.
