The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) order passed without Document Identification Number (DIN) number should be treated as invalid and was contrary to the CBDT Circular No.19/2019 dated 14th August 2019 as it was clear in the body of DRP order, no DIN number was mentioned nor there was any reason of not mentioning the DIN number in order of the DRP.
ITAT Delhi held that incentive / subsidy given by state Governments on account of development of new Multiplexes in the state is capital receipt.
No TDS under Section 192B on payments made to consultant doctors and retainer doctors as the provisions of section 194J applied to the retainer-doctors and not those of section 192B after noting differences between the two types of agreements i.e. salaried doctors and doctors appointed on retainership basis and the certain clauses in contract with retainers which gave the erroneous impression to AO of creating an employer-employee relationship had been explained by assessee that they did not create such a relationship.
While granting relief to NTPC, the proceeding under Section 263 could not be initiated on account of income received from the fly ash and cenosphere as in view of the notification of the Government the fly ash fund transferred to NTPC Ltd.
Absence of reply from the creditors do not entitle the Assessing Officer to treat the creditors as bogus without bringing any evidence on record to prove the payable are not indeed not required to be paid.
Explore ITAT Delhi’s ruling limiting deemed dividend addition to shareholders. Details on assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16. Full text analysis.
Even though the department had the authority to dispute the residential status of the assessee merely on the strength of the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC), it was incumbent upon the department to make a proper inquiry and to establish the fact that the party claiming benefit and the strength of the TRC was a shell or conduit company.
Explore ITAT Delhi’s ruling in DCIT vs. Creamy Foods Ltd regarding addition of unexplained cash during a search operation. Learn about explanation provided by assessee.
ITAT Delhi while quashing the revisionary order passed by the Ld. Pr.CIT held that, mere non-deposit in the capital gains scheme account cannot be the basis to deny deduction u/s 54/54F when the LTCG amount had duly been reinvested within the time allowed under 54(1) and that a hyper-technical/perfectionists point of view cannot the basis to assume revisionary jurisdiction.
Read ITAT Delhi order in ACIT vs Financial Inclusion Trust, highlighting the exemption of corpus-specific voluntary contributions from taxation. Learn about the legal implications and precedents cited in this case.
