Explore the Ravinder Kumar vs ITO case at ITAT Delhi. Learn how the tribunal allowed capital gain deduction under section 54B for agricultural land purchased in the name of the spouse.
Explore the landmark ITAT Delhi ruling in Finesse Intl. Design Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT. CBDT Circular violation deems assessment order invalid. Know more!
TAT) Delhi in case of Chandan Lal Goswami vs. ITO sheds light on the eligibility of employees holding civil posts under a State for gratuity exemption under Section 10(10)(i) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Addition made under Section 69 on account of the difference in excess stock of 22 Kt Gold and Polki Jewellery was not justified as the total weight of items of 22KT Gold jewelry and 22KT Gold Polki jewelry was 36,943 gms, and as per the estimated value, the difference was merely 113.50 gms, which was 0.32%.
Explore the ITAT Delhi order in ACIT Vs Vibha Taneja case for A.Y. 2014-15. Learn how the CIT(A) defended the assessee against unexplained money addition, citing possession and registered sale deed.
Addition under section 69A on account of actual cash arranged/paid by assessee to HKA was available with the assessee was not justified as “ownership” of money had not been recorded in the books of account and AO had made only presumption that the said cash was ‘available with the assessee’ without bringing on record any material in support thereof.
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.
