Held that assessee can claim remaining 50% depreciation in subsequent year in case where machinery and plant being acquired and put to use for less than 180 days in the previous year, the depreciation was restricted to 50%.
Held that undisputable the cash sales and details thereof is provided, VAT payment on such cash sales is also submitted. As the cash sales is not disputed by the department, adding the same as unexplained cash deposit unsustainable
Held that an employee holding a civil post under a state is eligible for exemption towards amount of gratuity received under section 10(10) of Income Tax Act
Assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice and an omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness.
Vedika Realty Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) It is well settled law, the mere filing of appeal is not sufficient until and unless, it is effectively pursued and prosecuted. From the record, orders passed by the authorities below specifically by the Ld. Commissioners and the facts of the case, the conduct of the Assessee […]
NBK Infrastructure P. Ltd Vs JCIT (ITAT Delhi) The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Gopal Singh Vs. CIT 258 ITR 85 held that when the additions are made on estimate basis that by itself does not lead to the conclusion that the assessee either concealed the particulars of his […]
Spinks Impex Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Hon’ble Apex court in the matter of PCIT vs. Aarham Softronics [2019] 102 com 343 (SC), pronounced on 20-02-2019. Wherein, it was held an assessee availing exemption of 100% tax on setting up of a new industry, which is admissible for 5 years, and either on the expiry of […]
R R M Trading Co. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT find that AO has restricted the payment of interest to the related parties @ 18% to 12% on the ground that it is excessive and unreasonable looking to the fact that assessee has paid interest to the partners @ 12% which is in accordance with […]
Sharda Educational Trust Vs JCIT (ITAT Delhi) The Bench is of firm view that the foundation of issuing show cause notice for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, being crumbled by a verdict of this Tribunal, by deletion of additions, the penalty order alone cannot stand by its own against the assessee. Reliance in this […]
Held that impugned expenditure cannot be held to be capital and it is not in the nature of personal expenditure or for any violation of law. Disallowance of CSR expenditure unjustified.
