In present facts of the case, there were issues pertaining to disallowance under Section 40A(3); disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D; short deduction of TDS u/s 40(a)(ia); undisclosed sales/difference in stock valuations and deduction u/s 80IB (11A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. All these issues have gone into the favour of the Appellant/ Assessee, most of them were covered by the Assessee’s own previous case serving best precedents.
Abhinav International Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In the present case, the assessee is saying that value of the shares owned by the assessee company of the listed companies which are recorded at the book value (cost price) is far less than the listed price (traded price) of those shares, therefore, same should be […]
Late Shri Bhushan Lal Sawhney Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Facts: 1. The IT Investigation wing had information that assessee maintained Swiss Accounts but this was vehemently denied by the assessee. 2. Swiss competent authorities provided information only from April 1, 2011. Earlier years (to which this litigation pertained) were not covered by the Exchange of […]
Naveen Infradevelopers & Engineers Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) With the approval of the Competent Authority, the following officers shall hold the charge along with zonal charges mentioned against their name with immediate effect, until further orders: Reopening of assessment u/s 147 – Addition u/s 68 – optionally convertible debentures issued to the Infotel technologies […]
Azamgarh Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs CPC (ITAT Delhi) 1. ITAT Delhi deletes addition made u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of contributions received from employees on account of ESI / EPF deposited beyond time specified in respective law but before the due date u/s 139(1). […]
Sukhdev Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) As regards the contention of notice not properly served by the Assessing Officer, the explanation of the postal authorities is that the assessee has refused to take notice is a good service and hence ground Nos. 1 to 7 are dismissed. As regards ground Nos. 8 to 13, the […]
Merely because assessee had not disclosed mode of payment of salary i.e. either by cheque or cash, the same should not doubted especially when such salary to security guards came to Rs.27,000/- per month for four persons. Even, if the payment was made in cash, there would be no violation of section 40A(3).
Manoj Singhal Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi) On going through the details, we find that the deduction claimed u/s 54F was Rs.6,12,10,100/- whereas the deduction eligible was Rs.6,11,19,500/-. Thus, there is a computational difference of Rs.90,600/- in the claim of deduction u/s 54F which could have been rectified u/s. 154. The provisions of section 263 need […]
ACIT Vs Yashovardhan Tyagi (ITAT Delhi) he issue in the present ground is with respect to the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act. AO made the addition u/s 69A of the Act and treated the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from M/s. Eagle Home Entertainments Pvt. Ltd. to be as not recorded in the […]
Notice issued by AO was bad in law since it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c), the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particular of income and merely because AO had treated the business loss claimed by assessee as speculation loss, the same could not tantamount to concealment of income warranting levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
