DLF Universal Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Ld AO has applied 0.5% of investment of Rs. 53.51 crores whereas the ld CIT(A) restricting 0.5% only Rs. 30.84 holding that balance investment of approximately Rs. 22 crores was made in the subsidiary companies and there was no intention of earning any dividend income. The ld CIT(A) […]
ACIT Vs. K. S. Chawla & Sons (HUF) (ITAT Delhi) > HELD THAT:- In the present assessee’s case, search & seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 15.10.2009 in the premises of Mr. Abhinav Arora and Mrs. Ranju Arora. Consequently, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act […]
Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Since assessee produced sufficient documentary evidences before AO to prove the identity of the Investor Companies, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction and no evidence had been brought on record by AO to disprove the same, hence addition made under section 68 was […]
Since in the financial statement for the relevant year (F.Y. 11-12), the auditor had made a clear disclosure that no revenue had been recognized on account of services rendered to SBI despite having incurred a cost of Rs. 3.2 crore and moreover, as per the matching ‘principl
Crown International Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) There is no dispute on the amount as well as of the fact that the adjacent plot was used for parking space by the shop orders. The only reason is that there was no legal obligation on the assessee to provide a parking space to the shop owners and […]
VSR Enterprises Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Assessing Officer in the instant case has recorded incorrect/wrong and non-existing reasons in the reason for reopening of the assessment and has not applied his mind to the information received from REIC, Ward 43(4)(New Delhi). Therefore, the reopening of the assessment is illegal and bad in law and is […]
BSC C&C Kurali Toll Road Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The issue under dispute is with regard to availability of depreciation to the assessee whether it is to be allowed keeping the right to collect toll fee as intangible assets or it to be treated as building or plant & machinery as held in the […]
Simranpal Singh Suri Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) This shows that the notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee on the very same day on which the assessee appeared and furnished copy of ITR in response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. It has been held in various decisions that when the notice […]
Addition made on account of AMP expenses qualified as an ‘international transaction’ under the terms of section 92B(1) read with section 92F(v) was not justified as AMP Expenses did not qualify as an ‘international transaction’ for the purposes of section 92B firstly, there was no international transaction in the form of any agreement or arrangement on AMP expenditure incurred by assessee company; and secondly, under FAR analysis also, no such benefit from the AMP expenditure having any kind of bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets as accrued to the AE or any kind of benefit has arisen to the AE.
Any material collected at the back of assessee or any statement recorded under section 131 at the back of assessee could not be read in evidence against assessee, unless same was confronted to assessee and that assessee should be allowed to cross-examine to such statements.
