ITAT Delhi

Unsecured Loan from relatives cannot be equated with Bank Loan

DCIT Vs. Prem Kumar Gupta (ITAT Delhi)

Hon'ble Delhi ITAT held that there is difference between loan taken from Banks and unsecured loans taken from the relatives. In the case of unsecured loans from the relatives, no formalities and bank guarantee have to be given. Thus the Hon'ble Tribunal has held 15% interest paid on unsecured loans taken as highly reasonable....

Read More

HUF cannot be a partner in partnership firm; Belated return cannot be revised

Ajay Kumar Gupta (HUF) Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

Ajay Kumar Gupta (HUF) Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer has rightly invoked section 154 because the assessee wanted to take benefit of the notification issued by the CBDT. In the present case, as per judicial precedents, the HUF itself cannot become a partner in the partnership firm and as […]...

Read More

Remuneration to partners not allowable if Assessee fails to comply with section 184(2)


MART Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The issue in dispute before us in respect of remuneration given to the partners, which has been disallowed in terms of section 185 of the Act, which says that “if a firm does not comply with the provisions of section 184 of the Act for any assessment year, then no […]...

Read More

Expense incurred by Trust for private parent company outside India not allowable

M/s. Escorts Cardiac Disease Hospital Society Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)

M/s. Escorts Cardiac Disease Hospital Society Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Assessee is not running any hospital towards which this expense has been incurred. The assessee just conducted a seminar for the benefit of its parent body i.e. Escorts Hospital, which is a private company. The expense has been incurred outside India and therefore, it is a...

Read More

Income / Losses declared by Investor Companies not a Sole Criterion to examine Creditworthiness

Psychotropics Leasing & Finance (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)

Psychotropics Leasing & Finance (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The ld. CIT(A) appears to have stressed on the fact that the impugned share holders has shown meager income in their return of income. In our opinion, the income/losses declared by the investor companies is not a sole criterion to examine the creditworthiness of the [&hellip...

Read More

Third part statement cannot be relied if No Opportunity for Cross-Examination was given

Rajat Exports Import (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)

Rajat Exports Import (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The AO noted in the assessment order that the DIT (Inv.) in the course of investigation in the case of Shri Mukesh Gupta, Shri Rajan Jassal and Shri Surinder Pal Singh recorded their statements. The assessee was supplied with the seized material at the fag […]...

Read More

Gain on sale of Shares held for more than 12 months as investment is LTCG

ACIT Vs M/s. Wig Investment (ITAT Delhi)

ACIT Vs M/s. Wig Investment (ITAT Delhi) AO has treated not only the gain on mutual funds as business income but also gain on profit and sale of shares as also as business income. Now in view of the CBDT Circular dated 29.9.2016, if shares are held for more than 12 months which have been […]...

Read More

Document related to transactions recorded in books cannot be considered as incriminating material

Lord Krishna Dwellers (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

Advocate Akhilesh Kumar Sah Lord Krishna Dwellers (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Lord Krishna Dwellers case: Purchases of land reflected in the seized sale deeds duly recorded in the regular books of account, documents seized relating to same during the course of search cannot be considered as incriminating material, enabling AO to procee...

Read More

No penalty for mere non-reflection of Income surrendered voluntarily in ITR

Sudhir Khandelwal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)

Where assessee had already paid income-tax on the amount surrendered during the course of survey, it could not be said that the surrendered income was not voluntary and the assessee wanted to conceal the income, therefore, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified....

Read More

Assessment by serving notice at wrong address: ITAT orders fresh adjudication

Pradeep Jain Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)

Pradeep Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) In the present case, it is noticed that the AO issued notices u/s 148 and 142(1) of the Act at the address D-60, Noida Authority, Sector-108, Noida. However, the assessment was framed by mentioning the address of the assessee as P-3, Shop No. LGF 20, Krishna Apra Plaza, Sector-18, […]...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,680)
Company Law (5,954)
Custom Duty (7,737)
DGFT (4,218)
Excise Duty (4,361)
Fema / RBI (4,181)
Finance (4,380)
Income Tax (32,986)
SEBI (3,450)
Service Tax (3,553)