The assessee is one of the group companies of China based TIENS Group of Companies. The business of the assessee, is Trading/Distribution of Food Supplements and Health Care Equipments. The products dealt with by the Company are basically products manufactured at China or other places by Group concerns. Another Group Entity Tianjin Tianshi Biological Development Company Limited, incorporated at China has established a Foreign Branch Office in India.
DCIT Vs Technico Industries Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) So far as the amount of Rs.920 lakhs deleted by the CIT(A) in respect of Shiroki Corporation is concerned, we find from the details furnished by the assessee that Shiroki Corporation is a Japan based related party of the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee […]
Rameshwar Lal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The Assessee vide order sheet entry dated 18.11.2016 was required to show cause why cash payment amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- paid in cash to Cosmos Group may not be added to the income as unexplained investment. The assessee vide his submission dated 24.11.2016, stated that he had paid Rs. […]
We find that the claim of depreciation in respect of license/ registration fee paid by the assessee to the Indian Railways is an asset whereon depreciation u/s. 32(1) is allowable.
Where return was revised under section 139(5), therefore, the original return filed under section 139(1) would not survive and hence, the claim of loss not made in original return but claimed in revised return had to be allowed.
Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of TDS u/s 194H and 194J on account of trade offers amounting to INR 834,92,63,976 provided by assessee to its distributors (HCL Info systems Ltd as well as other distributors) was not justified as there was absence of a principal-agent relationship thus, benefit extended to distributors could not be treated as commission under Section 194H and also, AO had not given any reasoning or finding to the extent that there was payment for technical service liable for withholding under Section 194J.
It was an admitted fact that assessee filed reply in response to notice under section 148 on 26-11-2013 and AO on the very same day served notice under section 143(2) upon assessee, whose signatures tally on the said notice without confronting the assessee with the remand report and the evidence produced by the AO before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, notice issued under section 143(2) was invalid and resultantly, the reassessment proceedings were vitiated and the same were quashed.
Revised/enhanced minimum threshold limit of tax effect of Rs. 50 Lakh vide CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dated 8-8-2019 was applicable not only for appeals to be filed by Revenue in future; but also for appeals already filed by Revenue in ITAT. Therefore, all existing appeals in ITAT, having tax effect below the revised/enhanced limit of Rs. 50,00,000, were to be treated as withdrawn/not pressed; and were, not maintainable.
pleader’s gross carelessness affords no ground for condonation of delay; that a legal advisor’s mistake, in order to justify condonation of delay must be a bonafide mistake; that mistaken advice given by a lawyer negligently and without due care is not sufficient cause; that the mistake should be such, which even a skilled legal advisor, well=versed and experienced in law might make that mistake; that, the fact that there was lawyer’s wrong advice has to be proved by the party seeking condonation of delay; and that the Counsel must disclose the circumstances in which incorrect advice was given and, it is not sufficient to make a perfunctory and general statement that wrong advice was given bonafide.
When a retiring partner took only money towards the value of his share on retirement and when there was no distribution of capital asset/ assets going to the partners, there was no transfer of capital asset and consequently no profits or gains was chargeable u/s. 45 (4).
