Since AS-11 was mandatory and required to be followed in computing the income, therefore, assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on forex loss pertained to non-depreciable asset acquired in India as loss from income.
ACIT Vs Modi Industries Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) We have perused the order passed by co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2011-12 wherein proposition mooted out by the assessee that the rental income from letting out steel units and quarter situated in the steel units is to be treated as “income from […]
While recording of the reasons to reopen an assessment, AO was required to form only prima Facie opinions about escapement of income as he was not making an assessment but taking a first baby step for making the assessment by forming a reasonable belief that whether the claim of assessee should be tested in reassessment proceedings or not. Thus, there was no infirmity in the action of AO that reasoned escapement of income by claiming deduction of Rs. 1 crore u/s 54EC.
Dheeraj Thakran Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Since the gifts in the instant case were received from parents, brother and spouse, respectively and the father had withdrawn substantial cash amount from the bank before giving the gift on various dates to his son and the gifts from brother, from mother and from spouse were not […]
Kimiyoshi Muto Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The case of the assessee was re-opened under Section 147 of the Act on the ground that the assessee has shown perquisite under rent-free accommodation by considering only the Indian salary whereas, according to the Assessing Officer, he was required to compute perquisite value of rent-free accommodation by including […]
Onus was on Revenue to show that the incriminating material/documents recovered at the time of search ‘belongs’ to the Assessee, in other words, it was not enough for the Revenue to show that the documents either ‘pertain’ to the Assessee or contains information that ‘relates to the Assessee.
Interest was payable under Section 234C on default in payment of advance tax installment on returned income, and not on assessed income.
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 […]
