That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, New Delhi has erred in deciding the appellate proceedings by confirming the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer without providing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to submit and substantiate his claim on the additions made by the Learned Assessing.
Shri Arun Kumar Jain Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) The A.O. noted that as per Section 54(2) of the I.T. Act, the amount of capital gain, which is not utilized by him for the purchase of new asset before the date of furnishing the ITR under section 139, shall be deposited by him, before furnishing such […]
The above two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 30.04.2005 passed by CIT(A)-41, New Delhi confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 201 (1) and 201 (1A) of the I. T. Act for the A.Y. 2011-12.
DCIT Vs M/s Dynamic Transmission Limited (ITAT Delhi) With regard to addition of Rs. 63,66,574/- on account of job work charges u/s. 80IC of the I.T. Act, 1961 is concerned, we note that the AO has observed that deduction u/s. 80IC is available only in respect of articles or things manufactured by itself in its […]
Question of disallowance under section 40A(3) would not arise, where assessee had not claimed the payments as expenditure, while computing its business income.
Shri Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) AO repudiates the return filed u/s 1 58BC (a) of the Act and proceeds to make an enquiry, he has to necessarily follow the provisions of section 142, 143(2) and 143(3) of the Act. In the case before us, the Department has not been able to negate […]
When income of assessee was determined on estimation basis of net profit, then no penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be imposed for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars.
DCIT Vs. M/s. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (ITAT Delhi) The technical handling services rendered by the assessee to the other airlines in India held to be part of the business of the assessee from the operation of aircraft in international traffic. In DCIT vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines [ITA No: 3819 /Del/2015, (A.Y. 2009-10) & […]
Mitchell Drilling India Private Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) It is elementary that the ALP is determined of an `international transaction’, which has been defined in section 92B of the Act. The term `transaction’, for the purposes of the Chapter–X containing transfer pricing provisions, has been defined in clause (v) of section 92F to include an […]
There is a mistake of getting the information through AIR which was collected by the appellant’s AR from bank. The transaction reported in the AIR was wrongly reported by the department. The AO should inform DGIT(System) to verify such information from the department server and correct it in future.
