Vidyadayani Shiksha Samiti Vs. CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Delhi) Coming to the powers of the Commissioner as to whether while granting registration under section 12A he is required to examine the books of account etc. or he is only to satisfy himself regarding the objects of the trust and genuineness of the activities of the trust, […]
The jewellery found in possession of the Assessee and his family is within the normal limits of the jewellery which as per the Board’s Circular not to be seized during the search proceeding of the Income Tax Act. Moreover, in the case of Haroon Mohd. Unni Mumbai vs Department of Income Tax, the Assessing Officer conducting the search suo-moto allowed 250 gms. each to the married ladies of the family as their `Streedhan’.
On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.95,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit from an entry operator completely ignoring the findings given by the Honble Delhi High Court in cases like CIT V. Nova Promoters 342 ITR 169, CIT v. NR Portfolio [2013] 29 com 291 (Delhi), CIT v. N Tarika Properties
ITO Vs. Sh. Neeraj Goel (ITAT Delhi) IT(A) has rightly held that the assumption of jurisdiction to frame an assessment or non assumption of jurisdiction to frame an assessment goes to the root of the judicial act of framing an assessment order and in the event of non assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 143(2) of the […]
DCIT Vs Excelex Bio Polymers (P) Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The Assessing Officer held that the non-compete fee cannot be allowed as a revenue expenditure u/s 37(1). He took into consideration the amendment by the Finance Act, 1998 providing for allowance of depreciation on `intangible assets’ in the nature of know-how, patents, copyright, trademarks, licenses, franchises […]
ACIT Vs Swastik Pipes Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The assessee produced documentary evidences in support of its contention which had not been rebutted by AO and since impugned payments were in the form of reimbursement and no payments were made by assessee directly to shipping companies, therefore, assessee was not liable to deduct tax under section […]
The contention of the Ld. D.R. has no merit that ITO, Ward-1(1), Faridabad was empowered to issue notice as per PAN or it was issued as per Computerized System of the Department because it is against the provisions of Law. As such the issue would be in violation of the principles of law and as such the internal procedure provided by the department would not justify the illegality committed by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Faridabad.
Payment for IUC Charges is not chargeable to tax in India in the hands of the non-resident recipients and hence TDS was not deductible as per provisions of section 195 of the Act.
The facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring income at Rs.22,52,471/-. The assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of trading/ Distribution of ITC Products under the name and style of M/s. DK Enterprises. On verification of the P & L A/c, audited report and books of account of the assessee, it was noticed that assessee had made huge payments to M/s. Hanuman Traders in cash.
Recording of satisfaction by AO of person searched is a condition precedent for AO of other person to acquire jurisdiction and unless jurisdictional condition is satisfied, there can be no question of making assessment or reassessment in the case of such other person.
