ITAT Delhi held that External Development Charges (EDC) is an advance collected to provide common facilities and other services to the prospective flat owners. Since, the same is collected on approval of HUDA, it cannot form part of Profit and Loss Account. Accordingly, addition towards the same rightly deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that agriculturist are not required to maintain books of accounts as provisions of section 44AA of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, exemption claim u/s. 10(1) allowed.
ITAT Delhi held that Rule 128(9) nowhere debars claim of Foreign Tax Credit on account of delay in furnishing Form No. 67. The provisions contained under Rule 128(9) are directory and accordingly, allowed the credit of FTC.
ITAT Delhi held that bona fide error cannot be basis of imposition of penalty and hence imposition of penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act rightly deleted by First Appellate Authority.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards undisclosed investment in shares and unsecured loans merely based on observation made by DCIT without independent inquiry by AO is unjustified and hence the addition is liable to be deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that addition based on reliance placed on third party statement without any corroborated evidence is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, issue restored to AO for de novo adjudication.
ITAT Delhi rules that remittances to foreign subsidiaries are not taxable in India, leading to the cancellation of tax penalties on HCL Technologies Ltd.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of purchases and restricting the amount of purchases to 12.50% without examining the documentary evidences produced by the assessee is unjustified. Accordingly, matter remanded back to AO with direction to decide afresh.
ITAT Delhi held that assessments completed u/s. 153A, making addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, without any incriminating material found during the search action is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, addition deleted.
Since there was no failure on the part of assessee to fully and truthfully disclose material facts therefore, assessment under sections 147-148 was not valid as the specific provisions of Section 153C were deemed to take precedence over the general provisions of Section 147.
