Sponsored
    Follow Us:

ITAT Delhi

Addition U/s 68 not justified for Mere Non-Production of Director of Share Holder Company

August 10, 2018 2169 Views 0 comment Print

Moti Adhesives P. ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Mere non production of Director of said share holder company cannot justify adverse inference u/s 68 of the Act. Even if there was any doubt if any regarding the creditworthiness of the share applicants was still subsisting, then AO should have made enquiries from the AO of […]

Addition U/s. 68 for Receipt of share capital not justified when Identity, creditworthiness & genuineness proved

August 10, 2018 2622 Views 0 comment Print

ACIT Vs Ravnet Solutions (P.) Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)  Where assessee, in receipt of share capital, had established onus cast on it to explain identity and creditworthiness of subscribers and genuineness of impugned share transactions by filing evidences such as copies of confirmations, ITRs, PANs and bank statements, etc. AO was not justified in making addition […]

Delay in filing appeal with ITAT due to time barring assessment work not acceptable

August 9, 2018 1737 Views 0 comment Print

It is simply stated in the application for condonation of delay that due to time barring assessment, the impugned order was overlooked and got barred by limitation.

Penalty for Delay in Filing TDS Statement- Non-Availability of Staff not a valid defence

August 9, 2018 1110 Views 0 comment Print

Moreover, the change /lack of staff with the assessee-organization is not found substantiated by any evidence on record and such a reason, in our considered opinion, does not constitute to be a reasonable cause to file the TDS statements with such an inordinate delay.

Expenditure incurred on software eligible for depreciation @60%

August 6, 2018 10329 Views 0 comment Print

Expenditure incurred on the software is eligible for depreciation @60%, depreciation on the block of assets of website development cost eligible @ 60%: Re: appeal A.Y. 2006-07 of Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Satisfaction of AO before invoking section 14A must for disallowance

July 30, 2018 1146 Views 0 comment Print

Nine Dot Nine Mediaworx (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Once assessee had submitted that no expenditure incurred for earning dividend income, the AO was under legal obligation to demonstrate as to how he was not satisfied with the contention of assessee and only, thereafter, he could have proceeded to make a disallowance. As was […]

Section 14A will not apply if no exempt income

July 17, 2018 2457 Views 0 comment Print

McDonald’s India case: Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 will not apply if no exempt income has been received or receivable during the previous year in question

‘Second leg contract’ cannot be denied applicability of section 44BB

July 17, 2018 1050 Views 0 comment Print

There is no provision u/s.44BB to support the Assessing Officer’s interpretation of the so called ‘second leg contract’ so as to deny the applicability of the section to the assessee. Only requirement of the section is plant and machinery is given on hire is used or to be used in the prospecting /extraction/production of mineral oil. Thus the learned DRP upheld the applicability of Section 44BB.

Reopening based on change of opinion is not permissible under law

July 17, 2018 1353 Views 0 comment Print

Motorola Inc, USA appeal before Delhi ITAT: When no intangible material came to the notice of the AO to form the opinion that the income of the assessee company has escaped assessment and all the facts and figures have been brought on record by the assessee company during assessment proceedings and same had been explained: The reassessment proceedings were not sustainable, having been made after a period of 4 years from the relevant assessment years

Penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) invalid if Not specifically mentioned in assessment order as to which limb penalty was imposed

July 16, 2018 6888 Views 1 comment Print

As neither the assessment order nor the show cause notice stated the specific charge of alleged concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income vis-a-vis addition made by AO, entire penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were vitiated.

Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031