ITAT Delhi held that benefit of exemption under section 54 of the Income Tax Act available even if capital gain is invested in purchasing more than one residential houses within stipulated time limit.
ITAT Delhi held that addition u/s 68 unsustainable as genuineness of transaction routed through banking channel cannot be doubted on the basis of surmises and conjectures based on suspicion and doubts.
From gift deed it is crystal clear that the said property was gifted by assesee to his sister out of natural love and affection and it was in this back drop that assessee claimed before CIT(A) that incidence of transfer of immovable property was not liable to tax in his hands.
Entire amount of credit entries cannot be added to taxable income of assessee ignoring debit side entries and as when assessee is receiving cash and issuing cheques then said cheque of almost same amount then assessee cannot be held beneficiary of entire amount or entire amount of credit entries treating the same as unexplained.
Nagappan Arunachalam Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The ld. CIT(A) has sustained an addition u/s 69A equal to 50% of the peak balance in HSBC accounts jointly held with the spouse. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Appellant was not able to rebut the issues raised by the AO during remand proceedings as the […]
ITAT Delhi held that the Force of Attraction Rule doesn’t apply unless there is even a remote link between the activities of other projects is established with the PE.
ITAT Delhi held that payment received in the nature of Business Profit cannot be brought to tax in India in absence of Permanent Establishment in India.
ITAT Delhi held that if the appeal is adjudicated on merits, then, refusing to condone the delay in filing of an appeal is an error. Action of refusing to condone the delay, but, to dispose off the appeal on merit is untenable in law.
Before issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, approval of the higher authorities is a mandatory statutory requirement.
Assessee is an illiterate farmer and claims that he was not properly presented in assessment and appellate proceedings. Moreover, assessee claims that he was misguided by consultant
