ITAT Delhi held that assessment order framed in the name of a non-existing entity is non-est and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, initiation of proceedings u/s 263 based on such assessment order is liable to be set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that in view of provision of 47(v) of the Act the transaction of transfer of land from subsidiary to holding company is not covered u/s. 45 of the Act. Accordingly, when the transaction does not falls within ambit of section 45, then any claim of long term capital loss/profit cannot be allowed.
In the case of Raghuraj Laminates Pvt Ltd vs. ITO, the ITAT Delhi has quashed the reassessment order passed without issuing a valid notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The order was deemed illegal, bad in law, and without jurisdiction.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards unexplained jewellery unsustainable as panchnama clearly mentions the fact that ownership of jewellery belongs to various people.
ITAT Delhi held that order of the ld. PCIT passed in haste without verification of factual material, as amount alleged was in Crores as against actual transactions in Lakhs, is unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that strategic investments not yielding any exempt income during the year under consideration, the same cannot form part of the average value of investment for computing disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules.
ITAT Delhi held that as per Article 8 of India–Singapore DTAA receipts from operation of ships and aircrafts in international traffic is taxable in the country of residence of the recipient. Therefore, amounts received by the assessee from operation of ships in international traffic would be exempt.
ITAT Delhi held that delayed deposit of the contribution EPF & ESIC beyond the stipulated period prescribed in the respective Acts are not allowable as deduction.
ITAT Delhi held that as assessee disclosed all the material facts relating to payment of non-compete fee, assessee cannot be accused of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not leviable.
The Hon’ble Tribunal while allowing Revenue Appeal have held that when the amounts received in cash against the sale of flats which have not been recorded in the books of account of the assessee at the time of search and seizure operation and subsequently recorded in the books as advance from customers is nothing but an eye wash to supplement the explanation of the assessee regarding the cash receipts. Therefore the addition made by the AO deserves to be confirmed in the hands of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act.
