Detailed analysis of the ITAT Delhi judgement in Kamlesh Gupta Vs DCIT case where the tribunal ruled that addition made on estimated profit does not constitute concealment, hence, no penalty.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT observed that since, the assessee is found to be functionally comparable to the business auxiliary service providers, therefore it is established that the assessee has undertaken limited functions and risk in the merchanting trades segment and earns a fixed profit margin.
ITAT Delhi dismissed appeal of S K G Traders P Ltd against disallowance of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund/ESIC under section 36(i)(va) read with section 43B of Income Tax Act. The ITAT upheld disallowance, citing judgment in Checkmate Services case.
ITAT Delhi held that revenue receipt generated from the operation of “Hotel/ Resort” is taxable under the head “Business income” and not under “House Property” as fixed amount was not received in fact revenue was generated on fluctuation basis.
ITAT Delhi held that addition u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as the assessee has sufficiently demonstrated that strict adherence to payment through banking channel is, at times, not practicable and has the potential to severally hamper the ongoing business of trading in liquor.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of expenditure on adhoc basis, as a percentage of gross profit, without any specific findings is baseless and liable to be deleted.
ITAT Delhi held that sale transaction cannot be said to be completed as and when the assessee has entered into the agreement to sale. Transfer of title is complete through registered sale deed.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards alleged bogus purchases unsustainable as cross examination of person based on which AO was drawing inferences was not allowed and payments were made through banking transactions.
Held that internal CUP [internal Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method] is the most appropriate method for undertaking the determination of Arm’s Length Price.
ITAT Delhi held that that car parking cannot be separated from the main business of SEZ, hence deduction under section 80IAB of the Income Tax Act duly available on income from car parking rental.
