It was held that there can be two initial assessment years and the year in which there was substantial expansion that year is the initial assessment year within the period of 10 years for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 80-IC of the Act.
Satish Kumar Contractor Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the AO was not justified in making the addition on substantive basis in the hands of the assessee. He submitted that the assessee had filed a Supplementary Partnership Deed which clarified about the liability of the assessee firm. It was further […]
Additions made on ad-hoc basis on estimation does not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act as there is no conclusive proof of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
ITAT Delhi rules in favor of Amar Singh. Deletion of Rs. 2,23,000 addition under Section 69A. CBDT Instruction applied for demonetization period cash deposits.
ITAT Delhi held that expenses paid to legal and professionals for an opinion about legal and tax consequences of the prospective investment cannot be considered to be a capital expenditure. Such expenses are revenue in nature.
Karam Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Assessing Officer made the addition alleging that the assessee did not furnish the required information to prove the loan transaction. However, it is observed, before the first appellate authority, the assessee produced additional evidences, such as, the bank statements of lenders, copy of Income Tax Return etc. to prove […]
ITAT Delhi held that initiation of reassessment proceedings without applying his mind based only on the sole reason that as per AIR information assessee has deposited cash in his savings bank is without authority of law.
ITAT held that Once cash flow statement is not controverted by the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT[A], the addition of such cash deposit is not valid
The ITAT by relying upon the Judgment of co-ordinate Bench, wherein co-ordinate Bench followed the Judgment of Jurisdictional High Court have observed that 15% of the revenue relating to bookings made from India being attributable to the taxpayers PE in India after considering the nature and extent of activities in India and abroad and assets employed & risk assumed.
ITAT Delhi held that addition of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act merely on the basis of loose sheet alone without any other corroborative evidence is unsustainable in law.
