Absence of reply from the creditors do not entitle the Assessing Officer to treat the creditors as bogus without bringing any evidence on record to prove the payable are not indeed not required to be paid.
Explore ITAT Delhi’s ruling limiting deemed dividend addition to shareholders. Details on assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16. Full text analysis.
Even though the department had the authority to dispute the residential status of the assessee merely on the strength of the Tax Residency Certificate (TRC), it was incumbent upon the department to make a proper inquiry and to establish the fact that the party claiming benefit and the strength of the TRC was a shell or conduit company.
Explore ITAT Delhi’s ruling in DCIT vs. Creamy Foods Ltd regarding addition of unexplained cash during a search operation. Learn about explanation provided by assessee.
ITAT Delhi while quashing the revisionary order passed by the Ld. Pr.CIT held that, mere non-deposit in the capital gains scheme account cannot be the basis to deny deduction u/s 54/54F when the LTCG amount had duly been reinvested within the time allowed under 54(1) and that a hyper-technical/perfectionists point of view cannot the basis to assume revisionary jurisdiction.
Read ITAT Delhi order in ACIT vs Financial Inclusion Trust, highlighting the exemption of corpus-specific voluntary contributions from taxation. Learn about the legal implications and precedents cited in this case.
Explore the ITAT Delhi ruling in DCIT vs. Tapesh Tyagi case, clarifying that Section 115BBE doesn’t apply to surrendered income treated under Section 69A.
Rama Pashu Aahar (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi): Assessment Order Deemed Invalid without Document Identification Number (DIN)
ITAT Delhi held that offshore services that involve offshore supply of drawings and designs are inextricably linked with the offshore supply of Plant and equipment. Accordingly, the receipts from offshore services does not give rise to any income accruing or arising in India and therefore not taxable under the Act.
Income tax authorities could not step into the shoes of businessmen to determine how much expenditure should have been incurred for the purpose of business. as an organization incurred both operating expenses as well as non-operating expenses for running the business and there were certain expenses which were not allocable to a particular activity.
