In the case of ACIT vs. Avaya India Pvt. Ltd., ITAT Delhi excludes Infosys from the list of comparables under the software development services segment.
In the case of Kanav Metals vs. ITO, ITAT Delhi rules that there can be no protective addition in the absence of a substantive addition. Read the full analysis.
Explore the Ankit Jain vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) case, emphasizing the crucial role of DIN in assessment orders. Learn about ITAT’s decision and CBDT circular implications.
ITAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act unjustified as voluntary deposit of tax was done before receiving notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that assessee has placed sufficient evidences to discharge initial onus to explain the nature and source of loans. Accordingly, addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unsecured loan unjustified.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards long term capital gain sustained as assessee failed to furnish confirmation from the purchaser company as lower sale consideration was claimed by assessee.
ITAT Delhi held that invocation of revisionary power u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act without satisfying two conditions i.e. order was erroneous and it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Delhi held that rejection of valuation merely on the ground that on the date of issue of shares, DCF method was not there in Rule 11UA of the ITAT Rules is unjustified in as much as AO failed to demonstrate that methodology adopted by the assessee was not correct.
ITAT Delhi held that maintenance charges received from corporate members is exempt on principle of mutuality. The said receipt doesn’t become taxable merely because it was subjected to deduction of tax at source.
ITAT Delhi held that addition u/s. 68 towards unexplained unsecured loan unsustainable as the onus which lays upon the assessee to explain that the entries made are real and not fictitious, has been duly discharged.
