Expeditors International (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Education Cess is not of the nature described in sections 30 to 36, Education Cess is not in the nature of capital expenditure, Education Cess is not personal expense of the Assessee, it is mandatory for it to pay Education Cess and for the purpose of […]
ITO Vs Indica Industries Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Unless and until the position in initial year is disturbed, it is not possible to take a different view for the subsequent assessment years . It can be seen from the impugned order that ld. CIT(A) noted that assessment year 2014-15 is not the initial year to […]
DCIT Vs Paveljeet Singh Ruppal (ITAT Delhi) The Assessing Officer has to demonstrate from the records that there has been a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. Here in this case, the assessee has duly disclosed the factum of total secured loan, total […]
ACIT Vs Sahyog Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi) Based on the above reasons recorded, notice under Section 148 of the act was issued to the assessee on 25th of June, 2013. From the above reasons recorded it is evident that all these documents were available with the ld. Assessing Officer at the time of making […]
Cushman & Wakefield Property Management Services India Pvt. Ltd.,Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the quantum appeal has been allowed by the Tribunal. Thus, the addition, on which penalty has been imposed by the Revenue does not […]
ACIT Vs Krishan Lal Madhok (ITAT Delhi) A.C.I.T. on the basis of information received from the Government of France under the Double Taxation Avoidance Convention wrongfully assumed that Shri Krishan Lal Madhok was earning an interest at the rate of 4% from his foreign Swiss Bank account, thereby included the same in his income while […]
ITAT- Held that, benefit of deduction under Section 54F of the IT Act cannot be denied to the Respondent merely on the ground that conveyance deed has not yet been got registered particularly when the Respondent is proved to be in possession of the property in question out of which the Respondent was already owner in possession of 1/3rd share since 2008 after making a complete payment of the sale consideration to the vendors and has duly proved possession over the property by way of electricity and water charges bills.
Yogi Ji Technoequip Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Facts : Addition on account of employee’s contribution to ESI and EPF – CPC while processing the return of the assessee disallowed the claim of employee’s contribution towards ESI and EPF on account of delay in depositing the amount as per the respective statutes Held: Respectfully […]
ITO Vs The Inclen Trust International (ITAT Delhi) AO made an addition of Rs.37,19,000/- being the excessive remuneration paid to Dr. N.K. Arora. On the one hand, he is being considered a specified person as a de facto trustee and on the other hand, he is being admitted as working under the trust and his […]
Canara Bank Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The fact of this case clearly shows that original order passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act on 24.03.2014 where the Assessee was found to be an assessee in default and also charged interest thereon comprising all the above sum. The appeal before the ld CIT(A) was filed […]
