In Raunika Fashion Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) case, ITAT clarifies that Section 41(1) cannot be invoked when trading liabilities have not been written back in books of accounts.
ITAT Delhi’s ruling on Sentinel Consultants P. Ltd. vs ACIT addresses the due dates for PF-ESI contributions, aligning with the ESIC & PF Act over the Income Tax Act’s Mercantile System, impacting the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20.
ITAT Delhi held that the revenue itself is not very sure of the receipt of the cash nor there was any evidence. Accordingly, addition based on baseless allegation which cannot be proved is unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that plausible approach adopted by AO cannot be labeled as erroneous. Hence, revisionary order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Delhi held that Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) is statutorily the only evidence required to be eligible for the benefit under the DTAA. Accordingly, benefit of India-Mauritius DTAA duly available.
ITAT noted that the explanations provided by the assessee concerning the withdrawals, deposits, and utilization of cash over time were satisfactory. The Tribunal acknowledged the Indian socio-economic constructs where holding cash, especially in rural society, is common.
Delhi ITAT asserts that mere transactions through a DMAT account or selling shares on stock exchange don’t necessarily rebut Section 68 of Income Tax Act. Understand the full implications of this ruling with our comprehensive analysis.
ITAT Delhi’s ruling in UM Green Lighting P. Ltd vs DCIT emphasizes the supremacy of NCLT’s moratorium under IBC over tribunal proceedings, halting the Revenue’s case during the moratorium period, and underscoring the IBC’s overriding effect.
Landmark case of DCIT Vs Trans Asia Packaging Ltd, where ITAT Delhi provided clarity on transactions post amalgamation under Section 269SS of Income Tax Act
Delve into ITAT Delhis ruling in Naveen Chandra Bhatt vs ITO, where the disallowance for late deposit of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC under Section 36(i)(va) of the IT Act was upheld.
