Usekiwi Infolabs Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The facts clearly shows that assessee has got an investment from Kstart LLC, Mauritius as a contribution towards issue of 20,000 compulsorily convertible preference shares having face value of ₹ 10 each at a premium of ₹ 827.50 per share. For this proposition the bank account of […]
It is not a case, where losses of non eligible unit or units are being set off against the profit of eligible unit. The issue whether section 10A is exemption provision deduction provision is of no relevance. Insofar as, carry forward of loss of unit eligible to deduction under section 10B is concerned the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2003 to subsection (6) with retrospective effect from 01.04.2001 specifically provide for carry forward of losses of 100% EOU.
Now the question is whether it should be reduced by the value as determined under section 50C of the act or actual money received by the assessee. The provisions of section 50C cannot be incorporated in the computation of block of the assets for the simple reason that it only substitutes the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer for the purposes of section 48 only.
Delhi ITAT ruling: Assessment cannot be reopened merely on change of opinion. Long-term capital gain upheld. Depreciation disallowed. Full judgment.
In section 54 was transfer of a long term capital asset’ being the residential house referred to a residential house which might comprise more than one building or buildings structure; but the same were used as a single residential house. Thus, even if more than one unit were adjacent to each other and were being used as a single residential house by assessee and his family members, the same would be considered as residential house u/s 54 and entitled to exemption.
ACIT Vs Mitsui & Co. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The facts in brief are that the assessee-company is incorporated in Japan and had a subsidiary in India, Mitsui India Pvt. Ltd. (MIPL). In India, assessee has undertaken several projects in connection with big natural installment and power projects during the relevant year through its project office. […]
Kapil Dev Ranwan Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) It is pertinent to note that the assessee was working in UK for more than 183 days which was never disputed by the Revenue at any point of time. Besides this the Revenue authorities are very well aware that the assessee has paid taxes in UK for the […]
ACIT Vs Moon Beverages Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Since the additions in the other appeals also are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search and since we have already held that statements recorded u/s 132(4) are not incriminating in nature, therefore, the addition made by the AO being not based on […]
Neel Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) A perusal of the reasons for reopening of the case for the impugned assessment year, copy of which is placed at paper book page No. 20-21 shows that the reopening was made on the basis of the report of the investigation wing and there is no independent […]
Agilent Technologies India Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) With respect to the Infosys technologies it is the claim of the assessee that the turnover of the above company is such a huge turnover that it is not comparable with the assessee company is software development division. For this proposition we look at page number […]
