ITAT Delhi held that power incentive granted by the Government of West Bengal is actually given for sole intention of setting up new industry and attractive private investment and hence the same is capital receipts and not chargeable to tax.
ITAT Delhi held that where two views are possible and AO adopted the one which Commissioner doesn’t agree then in such case revision under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not permissible for mere difference of view.
ITAT held that TDS credit shall be given to deductee for Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) for which such income is assessable under Income Tax Act, 1961
ACIT Vs Bhagwati Coal Movers (P) Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) ITAT Delhi held that the ‘Security Premium Reserve’ cannot be regarded as part of accumulated profits under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. Facts- AO observed that the assessee has obtained loan amounting to Rs.5,52,50,000/- from M/s. Ajmala Stationery Ltd. A part of the loan […]
ITAT Delhi held that forward contract was purely hedging transactions entered into by assessee to safeguard against loss arising out of fluctuation in foreign currency, loss on such transactions could not be held as speculative transactions felling within ambit of section 43(5).
ITAT Delhi held that benefit of India-UK DTAA is available to Limited Liability Partnership on the portion of income from Indian engagement.
ITAT held that Interest received under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not taxable under section 56(2)(viii) read with sections 57(iv) and 145A of Income Tax Act,1961.
ITAT Delhi held that the main objective of the assesses is to carry on the business of letting out of properties and hence the income earned by the assessee from letting out of the property is assessable under the head Income from Business.
Unitech Wireless (Tamilnadu) Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT in assessee’s own case has considered identical issue and held that no TDS was to be deducted in case of roaming charges u/s 194J of the Act by holding as under:- “22. To conclude, The primary issue in the appeal was whether the roaming charges […]
ITAT find that if the expenses are proved to be un-genuine on verification, the AO ought to have disallowed the entire expenditure. Accepting 75% of expenditure as allowable and the remaining 25% disallowable on ad-hoc basis cannot be considered as a reasonably rational order.
