ITAT Delhi held that amount received on account of business support services cannot be treated as ‘Fees for Technical Services’ (FTS) under Article 12(5) of India Netherlands DTAA and hence addition towards the same unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that share application money received in cash for allotment of shares would not amount either to a loan or deposit within the meaning of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, penalty u/s 271D not leviable.
Parvatiya Plywood (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Assessee filed its return of income through e-mode on 30.09.2012 declaring NIL income. It is recorded by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IC of the Act, amounting to Rs.34,49,325/-. In respect of statutory notices, Ld.AR of the assessee attended the assessment proceedings. […]
ITAT Delhi held that if already filed return is to be treated for the purpose of re-assessment, then, filing of fresh return on receipt of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is not required.
Microsoft Regional Sales Pte. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) While in the A.Y. 2018-19, the protective addition has been made in the hands of the assessee and the substantive addition has been made in the Mol Corporation during the A.Y. 2019-20, the substantive addition has been made in the case of assessee as the case […]
Devinder Gupta & Sons (HUF) Vs CIT (ITAT Delhi) It is an admitted position that the assessee had taken loan from the lender in the earlier years, a part of which has been repaid during the year albeit in cash. The amount of loan has been consequently reduced. A confirmation whereof from the lender has […]
ITAT Delhi held that in absence of any reasonable cause for taking cash loan (i.e. contravening provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act), penalty under section 271D of the Income Tax Act duly leviable.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance of Electricity Duty payable by the assessee by invoking provisions of section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is unwarranted and unjustified.
ITAT Delhi held that when the investment in house property is done jointly, claim under section 54 of the Income Tax Act is restricted to the 50%.
ITAT Delhi held that capital gain cannot be taxed in the hands of the person who sold the property as attorney of the owner. The same is taxable only in the hands of the owner of the property.
