The assessee filed three appeals against order of CIT(A) for A.Y. 2010-11, 2012-13 and 2013-14. It is important to note that inspite of putting up the case of hearing several times, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee.
A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 23.07.2015 and subsequent dates in different business and residential premises of Deepak Agarwal, Mukesh Kumar and others, group of cases based at Delhi.
ITAT Delhi held that delay of 35 days in filing of an appeal before CIT(A) ought to be condoned since assessee has explained the sufficient reason for said delay. Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
Assessee has preferred the present appeal mainly contesting that CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessment order passed by AO disregarding the fact that the same was passed on non-existing entity.
ITAT Delhi held that receipts from the sale of software licenses is business income and the same cannot be taxed in India in absence of Permanent Establishment and in terms of India-Austria DTAA.
Based on this satisfaction, a separate satisfaction note stood recorded u/s 153C of the Act in the hands of the assessee on 3.10.2022 by AO of the assessee. Hence the date of search in the case of the assessee becomes 3.10.2022 relevant to Asst Year 2023-24.
Analysis of ITAT Delhi’s ruling in Smt. Karuna Garg Vs ITO regarding the genuineness of long-term capital gains claims from penny stock transactions.
ITAT Delhi rules that assessment notices were not served to the assessee, Raj Rani, leading to the setting aside of an ex-parte order for reassessment.
ITAT Delhi condones 236-day delay in Sekhari Ganna Vikas Samiti’s appeal, emphasizing a liberal approach to delay explanations in tax appeal cases.
ITAT Delhi orders fresh review of Shiv Kumar’s ₹10.3 lakh deposit case after original appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with advance tax conditions.
