In the case of Classic Display Systems Pvt Ltd vs. ITO, the ITAT Delhi quashed the reassessment order as the AO failed to issue notice u/s 143(2) before finalizing the reassessment.
The ITAT Delhi quashes the penalty imposed under Section 271F against an 82-year-old widow for non-filing of Income Tax Return (ITR) as she had no taxable income.
ITAT Delhi held that addition merely on the sole basis that there was mismatch between TDS certificate/26AS and the turnover/receipts shown by the assessee in its P&L account unsustainable as difference successfully established.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act towards investment made out of interest free own funds available with the assessee is unjustifiable and hence deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that passing of project-specific architectural drawings and designs with measurements did not amount to making available technical knowledge, know-how, or processes. Since ‘make available’ clause is not satisfied, services rendered to the AOP does not fall within the purview of FIS under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-USA DTAA.
ITAT Delhi held that supplemental rent/maintenance reserve would be exempt from tax in the hands of lesser in India as per Section 10(15A) of the Act and hence, no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. Hence, TDS not deductible on such amount paid to foreign company for acquiring aircraft on lease.
Read the full text of ITAT Delhi’s order in the case of Sadhna Goyal vs DCIT, where the appeal was allowed due to a violation of the principle of natural justice.
ITAT Delhi held that issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act by the Income Tax Officer having no jurisdiction over the assessee and consequent assessment made u/s. 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act is void and bad in law.
ITAT Delhi held that rejection of Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Method for valuation of share price unjustified as that the methodology adopted was a recognized method of valuation and the Revenue was unable to show that the assessee adopted a demonstrably wrong approach.
ITAT Delhi held that addition of interest free security deposit sustained as the same is not refunded to the Developer even after lapse of more than seven years by merely stating that the Developer had not provided completion certificate.
