The assessee has an agricultural land. During A.Y. 2010-11, M/s Indian Oil Coproration Ltd, had laid down the underground pipe-line. The Land of the assessee was in the way of pipe line to be laid down. For digging of land and laying the pipe-line, the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
The two appeals filed against the order passed by the Deputy CIT were identical in facts and the issues rose. The core issue involved was the addition made by the AO on account of Arm’s length price determined by Transfer Pricing Officer and confirmed by Dispute Resolution Panel.
First Blue Home Finance Ltd vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)- The assessee was 100% Indian subsidiary of BHW Holding AG (BHW Germany) and was engaged in the business of providing loans to retail customers for the construction or purchase of residential properties in India.
In the case of Venture Infogain India Pvt. Ltd vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax ITAT has held that provisions the Profit Split Method is applicable mainly in international transactions which are so interrelated that they cannot be evaluated separately
ACIT Vs. DJ Infrastructure Dev Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT DELHI) AO made additions on account of unexplained sources of expenses on the basis of some documents found during search proceedings u/s 132 on Gopal Zarda Group. On seized documents some details of expenses and payment of share premium is mentioned.
ITO Vs. Facor Power Ltd. (ITAT DELHI) AO made addition on account of interest earned on FDRs put in bank for procurement of capital asset by holding that no such capital assets is acquired by assessee during the year under consideration.
ITAT Delhi held in Ambience Hotel & Resort Pvt. Vs CIT that if the AO had done his assessment ignoring the provisions of the IT act and TPA and ignoring the examinations/inquiry then that assessment was erroneous
ITAT held in Almora Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd Vs ITO that TDS was not required to be deducted when co-operative society pays interest to its members as per sec 194A(3).
ITAT held in Envogue Wood Working Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT that if the assessee had taken and repaid the loan in cash and provided the sufficient reasonable cause of doing such then penalty u/s 271D & 271E would not be imposed.
ITAT Delhi held in Executive solutions Pvt Ltd Vs ITO that reasonable opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee as per the principle of natural justice irrespective of the fact the number of times opportunity of being heard had already been given to the assessee.
