It is to be noted that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not automatic. If assessee offers reasonable explanation, then, penalty cannot be imposed.
The two-member bench held that transformation of articles to bring new articles into existence amounts to manufacturing and allowed deduction under section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
FCC Co. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT had directed the assessee to file the description of services rendered by the employees of the assessee on their visit to India and the corresponding clause under the Agreement for Dispatch of Engineers under which such services would fall. In response, the assessee furnished Annexure 1 for […]
ITO Vs Sh. Subhash Chandra Narang (ITAT Delhi) Undisputedly, the Assessing Officer has added an amount of Rs.3,18,61,356/- as long term capital gain. The aforesaid addition is as a result of couple of disallowances, viz., disallowance of cost of improvement amounting to Rs.1,65,39,435/- and deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act towards investment in […]
Explore the ITAT Delhi’s decision on Anandtex Int. P. Ltd’s case against addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Learn about the challenges related to share application money and share premium.
Sheela Devi Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT observed total lack of opportunity by PCIT while concluding the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. It is apparent from the records that solitary show cause notice issued to the assessee was for attendance on the very next date, i.e., 26.03.2021 in substitution of the first show […]
Explore the ITAT Delhi’s decision in Anant Media Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT case. Learn about the challenges, legal principles, and the directive to the assessee for a fresh hearing. Understand the implications of the share premium disallowance and the significance of complying with authorities’ notices.
ACIT Vs Benetton India Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The assessee submitted that the advances written off is not a capital loss as it is written off as security deposits against the shops obtained on rent. Such write off of security deposits was incidental to the business of the assessee and was for running its operations. […]
Kanshi Ram through Legal heir Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) On perusal of the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act we observe that the notice issued was stereotyped and the Assessing officer has not specified any limb or charge for which the notice was issued i.e., either for […]
Bajaj Foods Ltd Vs The ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Undeniably the interest paid to Barclays Bank by the assessee has been added to the income of the assessee for non deduction of tax at source thereon as per section 195 of the Act treating the said Bank to be a non redident. The order of the […]
