Learn how issuance of a jurisdictional notice in the name of a non-existing entity led to the quashing of reassessment proceedings by the ITAT Delhi.
Tribunal ruled that mere disallowance of expenses or enhancement of returned income does not automatically warrant the imposition of penalties under Section 271(1)(c)
Section 54F nowhere envisages that sale consideration obtained by assessee from original capital asset is mandatorily required to be utilized for purposes of meeting cost of new asset. Section 54 Exemption allowable despite start of construction of new house before sale of old house
Search warrant is issued regarding premises and not necessarily regarding an assessee, and a common search warrant and panchnama issued against multiple assesses operating from the same premises are justifiable.
In the case of Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT, ITAT Delhi directed the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and Assessing Officer (AO) to delete the adjustment made on account of the arm’s length price (ALP) of export commission payment.
Understand the significance of deductions under Chapter-VIA of the Income Tax Act in the case of Jubilant Infrastructure Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi).
ITO Vs Avirook Sen (ITAT Delhi) The case of ITO Vs Avirook Sen (ITAT Delhi) revolves around the taxation of voluntary ex-gratia compensation paid by an employer to an employee after termination from service. The Revenue contested the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,13,08,444/- by the CIT(A). The crux of the dispute lies in […]
In DCIT vs. CDS Infra Projects Limited, ITAT Delhi ruled no addition under section 68 of Income Tax Act if proper evidence for source of share capital subscription is submitted.
Analysis of ITAT Delhi’s ruling in DCIT vs. Sandeep Hooda clarifies conditions for Income Tax Act 1961 Section 54 deduction eligibility in absence of basic amenities.
In ITO Vs Saivi Finance Pvt Ltd, ITAT Delhi restores the matter back to AO due to denial of natural justice, assessees not given chance to cross-examine persons whose statements were used against them.
