Pradeep Khanduja Vs ITO – ITAT Delhi – even after passing of the assessment order, the assessee did not move any application before the ld. CIT(Appeals) for admission of additional evidence, which has now been filed before us, and which is sought to be admitted. Rule 10 deals with filing of affidavit and states that where a fact, which cannot be borne out by, or is contrary to, the record is alleged, it shall be stated clearly and concisely and supported by a duly sworn affidavit.
Delhi ITAT ruling on ACIT vs. M/s Global Vantedge – Exclusion of leased telephone lines from fringe benefits. Rs. 26,56,792 expense deleted.
Shri A.S. Bindra Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) – In the assessment order, it has been mentioned that due to non-availability of evidence, the assessee has offered this amount as his income. That fact cannot go against the assessee in penalty proceedings as the assessee will be having right to contest the levy of penalty independently, apart from the findings recorded in the assessment order. Therefore, the relevant evidence is admitted as additional evidence and the matter is restored back to the file of the AO for readjudication of the penalty proceedings after due consideration of the evidence being placed by the assessee on record. After giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and placing evidence on record, the AO will re-adjudicate the issue of levy of penalty or otherwise in accordance with law. We direct accordingly.
Income-tax Act Benefit u/s. 47(xiv) of the cannot be denied in case there is a delay in allotment of shares to the proprietor on conversion of a proprietary concern into a company
The decision of CIT Vs. America Counting Corporation 123 ITR 513, noted above also supports the view that taxes paid on behalf of the assessee is a perquisite or a benefit, but not income from business. It could not be taxed except under clause (iv) of Section 28 which provided that a benefit or perquisite was liable to be charged to tax.
DCIT v. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd (ITAT Delhi)- The Delhi Tribunal in this case has held that interest for deferment of advance tax is leviable under Section 234C of the Act where there is a shortfall in payment of advance tax while computing ‘book profit’ under the existing MAT provision under Section 115JB of the Act.
Mr. Isao Sakai Vs. JCIT (ITAT Delhi) Tax paid by the employer on behalf of the employee is perquisite and can not be included in salary for valuation of concessional accommodation / Rent- Free House Property etc.
Nimbus Sport International Pte. Ltd. v. DDIT (ITAT Delhi) -Coming to the issue about the advertisement revenue received by the assessee in Singapore for matches played abroad, it has not been disputed that the matches in question for which advertisements were given by the Indian company were all played in foreign countries. The assessee does not have a PE in India. In this eventuality, the revenue collected by it for the matches played overseas and telecast at overseas will not attract the theory of force of attraction for taxing them in India.
DCIT vs. M/s Calcutta Test House Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) – Non-resident lessor does not have PE or business connection in India on account of leased assets used in India but delivered outside India, provided the lease agreement is entered on principle to principle basis.
Smt. Alka Agarwal Vs. ADIT (ITAT Delhi) – once the assessee has converted a capital asset into stock-in-trade, the capital gain arising on such transaction of transfer shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which transfer took effect. That was the ordinary position where the capital gain would have been liable to tax in the AY 2005-06 itself. Now, the provisions of Section 45(2) make an exception to the generality of provisions of Section 45(1).
