High Court held that the provisions of Section 194J applied to the retainer doctors and not those of Section 192.
Addl. CIT Vs Times Internet Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) During the year, the assessee claimed an amount of Rs.10.55 crores on account of consultancy fee, out of which an amount of Rs.98.37 lacs has been disallowed by the AO pertaining to the amount paid for legal and professional services. The AO held that since the expenses […]
Guardian Nutrition & Health Supplements Pvt. Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in the business of rental trading of pharmaceutical products. In the present case, Assessing Officer (AO) made proportionate disallowance of interest on ad hoc basis after noting that assessee had both interest bearing funds […]
Dive into the ITAT Delhi judgment on ACIT vs. Voith Paper Fabrics, addressing the treatment of technical know-how fees as revenue or capital expenditure.
Naveen Tyagi Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) HC held that if notice u/s 148 was not served on the assessee in accordance with law the reassessment made consequent thereto was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. In the case on hand as the Revenue could not prove the service of notice u/s 148 on the […]
Roshan Lal Verma Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The validity of impugned assessment order resulting in present appeal is under challenge on the grounds of notice issued under Section 143(2) purportedly barred by limitation. It is the case of the assessee that, in the instant case, assessee has filed the return of income on 14.10.2011 and […]
Jain Peripherals Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Section 41 postulates disallowance of cessation of liability for expenditure incurred in trading account earlier. In the present case, disallowance has been made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on the plank that the purchases are not genuine. In our considered opinion, the issue […]
It is submitted on behalf of the assessee that the ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the notice dated 25.02.2013 issued u/s 274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not legally sustainable as it is not disclosed as to if the notice is issued for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of particular income.
Honble Delhi High Court considering the decision of the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Jet Airways (I) Limited (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) held that if the Assessing Officer does not make any addition on the primary ground on the basis of which proceedings under Section 147 were initiated he cannot make other additions.
The undisputed fact is that nothing has happened during the year under consideration, the impugned land was converted into stock in trade in earlier assessment year. It is not in dispute that the agreement between the assessee and Unitech is not an agreement for sale and it is not in dispute that there is no consideration.
