ITAT Delhi held that as per amendment to section 153C of the Income Tax Act the six assessment years immediately preceding the AY relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made will come into the purview of block assessment years.
ITAT held that interest paid on late payment of TDS is compensatory in nature and is an allowable deduction under section 37(1) of the Act.
ITAT held that when the notices issued by the AO are bad in law being vague and ambiguous having not specified under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) are not sustainable.
Jurisdiction of ITAT Bench which can decide appeal is to be determined by location of Assessing Officer. Since, location of AO in instant proceeding is at Mumbai, the appeals, should have been filed before Mumbai Benches and not in Delhi Benches.
ITAT Delhi held that that expenditure incurred between setting up and commencement of business could not have been capitalized and was to be allowed as business expenditure.
If in the initial year of claim the depreciation, is allowed, the claim cannot be disturbed in the subsequent years
Assessee must be informed of grounds of penalty proceedings through statutory notice and an omnibus notice suffers from vice of vagueness
Section 199 of Income-tax Act r.w. rule 37BA(3) provide that credit of TDS shall be given for assessment year for which income is assessable
ITAT held that in this case disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act has not been found from the books of accounts of the assessee. Rather the plea is that the suppliers have not maintained proper books of accounts.
Conclusion: Issue regarding claim of depreciation could not be decided until dispute regarding capitalization of expenses in assessment order was decided. Therefore, the same was restored to the file of CIT(A) with the direction to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee,
