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).
The allegation of AO that the opening stock of assessee was an unexplained income of the assessee as such stock in trade was not in existence seem to be unsustainable because why a person would show and on accounted opening stock of the magnitude of ₹ 51,000,000 just to on a meager net profit of ₹ 875,000/–.
Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) With respect to the TP adjustment to the export commission, which is claimed by the assessee that it is intrinsically, looked that the main activity of manufacturing and sale of products and as such could not be identified separately for benchmarking. It is also […]
Duggal Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) From the reasons it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was not specific as to on what basis the Assessing Officer has the reason to believe that the income of the assessee to the tune of 1 crore has escaped assessment. In fact, in one para […]
