ITAT Delhi held that the interest awarded under Land Acquisition Act is not taxable, accordingly, tax on the same cannot be demanded by way of invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act.
If initiation of penalty is one limb & levy of penalty is on other limb, then in absence of proper SCN, there is no merit in levy of penalty
The assessee however submitted that its operations were closed and being no regular employee looking after the matter, the notices issued by the Learned CIT(A) could not be complied.
Final order passed by AO is beyond limitation period provided u/s 144C of Income Tax Act, hence, same is liable to be declared as null & void
Assessee contended that he was not the owner of the property sold and he executed sale deed on behalf of owner Shri Ashok Kumar Garg and, therefore, fasting tax liability on account of short term or long term capital gain on the shoulders of the assessee is not valid.
ITAT Delhi held that addition merely on the basis of statement recorded u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act without considering the documents and evidences is unjustified. Accordingly, matter remanded back for fresh consideration.
ITAT Delhi held that disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act unjustified as there was due compliance with provisions of section 194C(6). Violation of provisions of section 194C(7) doesnot attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act.
Addition made on the basis of information and material collected on the back of the assessee cannot be tackled as valid basis for making addition
Tax Authorities have fallen in error in holding that assessee required to pay TDS @10% towards common area maintenance charges.
ITAT Delhi held that co-ordinate bench in assessee’s own case in earlier assessment years duly hold that Huawei India is permanent establishment of Huawei China in India. Based on norms of judicial discipline the same is implied in the present assessment too.
