DCIT (Exemption) Vs Yug Nirman Yojna Vistar Trust (ITAT Delhi) Facts- The assessee is a trust, registered u/s 12A of Income Tax Act. Perusal of assessment order dated 29.12.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act; shows that registration u/s 12A was granted to the assessee by order dated 01.05.2009 of […]
Where it was discernible from record that the A.O has applied his mind to the issue in question, the ld. CIT cannot invoke section 263 of the Act merely because he has different opinion.
Held that objections of the assessee on reopening of assessment by the AO in the assessment order, these objections were never disposed off in terms of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO [259 ITR 19].
GE India Business Services Pvt. Vs DC/ACIT IT (ITAT Delhi) Facts- The assessee company GE India Business Services Pvt. Ltd. is set up as a captive service provider to provide offshore outsourcing services primarily to GE entities/ business worldwide. The primary activity in which Assessee Company specializes is to render IT Enabled Services (“ITES”) and […]
Merely because a person has not deducted tax at source from a remittance abroad, it cannot be inferred that the person making a remittance has committed a failure in discharging his tax withholding obligations because such obligations come into existence only when recipient has a tax liability in India.
It is well settled that any adjustments u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act by way of intimation u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act, on debatable and controversial issues, is beyond the scope of Section 143(1) of Income Tax Act.
It is held that assessee is entitled to additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) on power plant and the windmill installed during the year.
AO was not justified in denying the deduction claimed by the assessee on account of late deposit of PF/ESI/EPF, albeit before filing the return of income.
The law is well settled that for exercising power u/s 263 twin conditions are required to be satisfied – (i) that the order should be erroneous and; and (ii) it should cause prejudice to the interests of Revenue. Moreover, it is not the case where the assessee failed to substantiate his claim, rather the explanation along with supporting evidences were placed before the assessing officer and the learned Pr.CIT.
ITO (Exemption) Vs Innovative Welfare and Educational Society (ITAT Delhi) Facts- The Assessee had filed its ROI on dated 31.03.2006 by declaring Nil income which was processed and resulting into passing of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act on dated 21-09-2007. Later on it came to the knowledge of the AO that the […]
