ITAT Delhi held In the case of OSRAM India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that Article 2(1) of the India Singapore tax treaty provides that the taxes covered shall include tax and surcharge thereon. Once it is concluded that education cess is nothing but an additional surcharge
ITAT Delhi held In the case of DCIT vs. D.R.S. Warehousing (North) Pvt. Ltd. that the company was incorporated to provide material handling, storage, transportation, distribution, movers, packing and warehousing facilities which form part of its business.
The ITAT Delhi in the case of Shri Ashutosh Garg vs. ACIT held that when the assessee had produced his copy of bank accounts showing the advancing of loan to non-resident and its repayment collection along with affidavit filed both by non-resident and assessee
ITAT Delhi held In the case of G. E. Money Financial Services Ltd. vs. DCIT that where AO has not verified either (a) the allowability of the loss in principle or (b) where the claim is factually correct as quantification of the loss has not been verified by the AO, in both cases exercise of powers u/s 263 is in accordance with law.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of ITO vs. M/s Shakti Securities Pvt. Ltd. that merely based on investigation wing information without surveillance of substantiation and without any statement being mentioned therein and without nature of transaction being narrated therein and without tangible material
M/s Nikon India (Pvt) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In the light of various case laws & on bare reading of the provision prescribed in Act: ITAT held that as AMP is an international Transaction and TPO is having jurisdiction over it even without any reference is made by A.O.
ITAT Delhi in DCIT Vs Deepsons Southend held that if there is change in the profit sharing ratio of the partnership and all the partners remain same in the new partnership deed then that would not be change in the constitution of the firm so the loss of the firm could be carried forward.
ITAT New Delhi held in ACIT Vs Phonix Lamps India Ltd that if the assessee was selling its final product to particular parties continuously and there was no return of the final product. Moreover there was no complaint of any defect in the finished product.
In the case of M/s. Cash Edge India (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. ITO Delhi Bench of ITAT have held that transfer pricing adjustment is not one of the adjustments contemplated under Explanation 1 Section 115JB(2) of the Act and, therefore, could not have been added back to the book profits under Section 115JB.
In the case of ITO Vs. M/S JAGDAMBA OPTICS PVT. LTD. Delhi Bench of ITAT have held that there was existence of correct information which prompted to the AO to proceed to issue notice u/s. 148 of and hence, the reassessment proceedings could not be declared as null and void.
