TPO/AO cannot apply wrong method in the absence of material ie: audited financials of AE. More so, TPO/AO cannot even give the benefit as well to assessee for non cooperation for providing the audited financials of AE.
Advances rent during the course of opening of showroom were given in the course of business by assessee and for the purpose of commercial expediency. Therefore, forfeiture of the same by the concerned party had rightly claimed by assesseee as business loss.
Allied Agencies Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TS Balaram Vs. Volkart Brothers 82 ITR 50 (SC) clearly held that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points […]
Aspam Foundation Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Delhi) 1. The Assessee herein has preferred the instant appeal against the order dated 31.01.2019 impugned herein passed u/s 12AA(1)(b) r.w.s. 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), by ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Exemption), New Delhi (in short “Ld. Commissioner”). 2. In this case, […]
JCIT Vs Sh. Bhanu Chopra (ITAT Delhi) The only issue involved in the instant case relates to acquiring of bonus shares and applicability of the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act to the same. It was held by the Tribunal that allotment of bonus shares cannot be considered as received for an inadequate consideration […]
Frick India Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Assessee had made a claim of depreciation of Rs 60% on UPS but the AO restricted the claim of depreciation @ 15% only on the UPS and disallowed the excess 45% namely, Rs.50,320/-. It was submitted on behalf of the assessee that it is settled proposition of law […]
Agarwal Packers & Movers Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Merely because if a claim is rejected by Assessing Officer, would not ipso facto made the assessee liable for penalty Now, coming to the penalty confirmed in respect of addition sustained on account of disallowance of claim of depreciation. One of the averments of the assessee […]
Only in a very gross case of inadequacy in inquiry or where inquiry was per se mandated on the basis of record available before AO and such inquiry was not conducted, the revisional power so conferred could be exercised to invalidate the action of AO.
In our considered view the presumption cannot be real adjudication of an issue. The very purpose of income tax proceedings is to correctly assess the tax liability of an Assessee in accordance with law but not under presumption as held in this case.
The genuineness and the creditworthiness of the lenders cannot be disbelieved as the lenders filed returns and also filed confirmations. Therefore, I am of the view that the assessee has proved the genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and, therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition made towards bogus un-secured loans.
