ITAT Delhi held In the case of Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. vs. ADIT that the said issue is already covered in favour of the assessee by tribunal decision given in earlier years in which the tribunal held that the contracts are divisible.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of M/s. Mohair Investment and Trading Company (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT that it is clear that the present issue, related to application of section 14A, especially in relation to shares held as trading assets
The Assessee was engaged in the manufacturing of readymade garments and export to foreign countries. The Assessee had filed the Income Tax Return, declaring an income of Rs. 11,82,236/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
Chopra Properties Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) AO was of the view that according to provisions of Section 44AB assessee is required to get his accounts audited before specified date and not on the specified date. Therefore, as assessee has obtained this tax audit report on 30th September 2008 and not before 30th September, 2008, therefore, levied penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- u/s 271B of the IT Act.
JCIT Vs. Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) In the above group cases search was conducted and assessments were framed u/s 153A/143 (3). The search was conducted on 21.03.2007 and concluded on 22.03.2007. Hence last of the authorisation of search u/s 132 was executed on 22.03.2007.
New Delhi Television Ltd. Vs. ACIT- Bench of ITAT Delhi reversed the order passed by CIT (A) in which he confirmed the reassessment order after the lapse of four year when no new facts was revealed by the AO.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Sh. Haripal Singh vs. ACIT that it is settled legal position that that there is no estoppels in law. If in law an item is not taxable, no amount of admission or misapprehension can make it taxable.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of ACIT vs. M/s Command Detective & Securities Pvt. Ltd. that when all the purchases are accounted in the regular books of accounts, it means the source is explained and the provisions of section 69C are not applicable, as there was no unaccounted expenditure.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of ACIT vs. Smt. Divya Jain that the adoption of Fair Market Value of share in lieu of value of sale consideration as declared by the assessee is not valid . There is no provision under the law to include prospective benefit in the ambit of the word income.
DCM Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) AO has neither recorded his satisfaction nor given reasons as to how the claim of expenditure in relation to tax free income has not been correctly made by the assessee as envisaged under section 14A(2).
