AO without bringing any material or reasons before making any addition, simply added back the opening balances of the trade payables without making any verification from the parties and he had failed to discharge the preliminary onus and had made the addition in summary manners, therefore, CIT(A) had committed no error in deleting the addition made u/s 41.
ITAT Delhi’s ruling in Amtech Engineers vs. ITO clarifies that TDS is not applicable under section 194C for casual labor expenses in road construction and crane hiring.
Case study: JCIT vs. Ajay Sharma. Read NFAC introduction to the case & its findings on Rs. 1.95 crores addition on account of unexplained investment under Section 69 of Income Tax Act.
In a case of Vikram Dhirani vs. DCIT, ITAT Delhi rules in favor of the assessee, deleting the penalty under section 271AAA due to the lack of opportunity to explain undisclosed income source during search proceedings.
DCIT vs. Krishan Kumar case: ITAT Delhi dismisses appeal by the Department regarding share transaction, ruling it doesn’t fall under the CBDT Circular exception.
In the case of Shekhar Bharti vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi), the article explores how the valuation report was discredited, affecting the tax assessment.
ITAT Delhi’s decision regarding applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) to companies before April 1, 2017 in case of Rhythm Polymers Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT.
ITAT Delhi held that services are rendered without transfer of technical knowledge, skill, know-how, etc. and accordingly the receipts doesn’t qualify as FIS (Fees for Included Services) under Article 12(4)(b) of the India – USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA).
ITAT Delhi held that addition u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as cash found during search involves cash belonging to the family members and cash belonging to company.
In a crucial verdict, ITAT Delhi cancels Rs. 5,75,000 u/s 69C addition in Designers Point vs ACIT case due to lack of substantial evidence from WhatsApp chats.
