Where assessee had existing brought forward losses which were either could not be set off against the profits and if the assessee considered any year as the initial assessment year for the benefit of Section 80IA in such cases, the eligible profits would be determined only after setting off of the losses/ unabsorbed depreciation carried forward in the year the deduction was claimed.
Lord Krishna Rice Mills Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Whether the assessee can claim additional depreciation which was not claimed in the original return or not claimed through revised return, but, was claimed during the course of assessment proceedings. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Goetze (India) Ltd. […]
Space Chem Engineers Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) A perusal of the reasons recorded shows that the name of the companies from whom the assessee company is alleged to have accepted share capital / share application money are different from the companies mentioned in the assessment order from whom the assessee company has actually taken the […]
ITO Vs Angel Cement Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi) Now coming to the issue of fresh addition made by the ld. CIT (A) by making enhancement on account of alleged commission income in three cases. Though as discussed above, the ld. CIT (A) has deleted the addition made u/s.68 on the ground that no unaccounted funds […]
NTPC Electric Supply Company Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The facts in brief are that the assessee-company is a wholly owned subsidiary company of NTPC Ltd., a government undertaking with the objective to make foray in supply and distribution of electricity. It was entrusted with rural electrification work under the scheme of Central Government. The […]
Kedar Nath Sawhney Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The assessee in terms of its contract is bound to deliver the goods within the stipulated time. In the course of such transportation, the assessee is bound to incur expenses for putting fuel in the vehicle, payment of toll gate charges, incurring of expenses for routine and exceptional […]
Addition on account of unexplained share capital/premium was not justified as AO merely doubted the financial capacity of the Investors because they had reported low income in their return of income. This could not be the sole basis to doubt the explanation of assessee. It might be suspicion of the AO only without bringing any evidence on record.
Geodis Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) We find, the AO, in the instant case, disallowed depreciation on goodwill on the ground that the assessee has not become the sole logistic service provider to IBM India, the value of workforce does not facilitate the smooth carrying on of the business of the assessee and […]
AO had recorded wrong, incorrect and non-existing reasons for reopening of the assessment. It made clear that there was a total non-application of mind on the part of AO while recording the reasons for reopening of the assessment. The reasons failed to demonstrate the live link between the alleged tangible material and the formation of belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Thus, reopening of the assessment was invalid and bad in law.
Sajan Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Issue of Scrutiny Notice U/S 143(2) After Issue of Notice U/S 142(1) Invalid Where Valid Return U/S 139 already Filed on Record ITAT held that we are inclined to quash the assessment order dated 29.12.2017 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act for want of jurisdiction as notice issued […]
