Shri Ramphal Hooda Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Whether the exemption under Section 54F is extendable to the assessee for the total consideration paid by him, for the purchase of the new asset (the residential property) in the joint name or the exemption would be entitled to the extent of the share of the assessee in […]
This appeal by the assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) challenging the additions on account of long term capital gains arising from transfer of land and also an addition on account of short term capital gains arising from transfer of building.
The assessee is one of the group companies of China based TIENS Group of Companies. The business of the assessee, is Trading/Distribution of Food Supplements and Health Care Equipments. The products dealt with by the Company are basically products manufactured at China or other places by Group concerns. Another Group Entity Tianjin Tianshi Biological Development Company Limited, incorporated at China has established a Foreign Branch Office in India.
DCIT Vs Technico Industries Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) So far as the amount of Rs.920 lakhs deleted by the CIT(A) in respect of Shiroki Corporation is concerned, we find from the details furnished by the assessee that Shiroki Corporation is a Japan based related party of the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee […]
Rameshwar Lal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The Assessee vide order sheet entry dated 18.11.2016 was required to show cause why cash payment amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- paid in cash to Cosmos Group may not be added to the income as unexplained investment. The assessee vide his submission dated 24.11.2016, stated that he had paid Rs. […]
We find that the claim of depreciation in respect of license/ registration fee paid by the assessee to the Indian Railways is an asset whereon depreciation u/s. 32(1) is allowable.
Where return was revised under section 139(5), therefore, the original return filed under section 139(1) would not survive and hence, the claim of loss not made in original return but claimed in revised return had to be allowed.
Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of TDS u/s 194H and 194J on account of trade offers amounting to INR 834,92,63,976 provided by assessee to its distributors (HCL Info systems Ltd as well as other distributors) was not justified as there was absence of a principal-agent relationship thus, benefit extended to distributors could not be treated as commission under Section 194H and also, AO had not given any reasoning or finding to the extent that there was payment for technical service liable for withholding under Section 194J.
It was an admitted fact that assessee filed reply in response to notice under section 148 on 26-11-2013 and AO on the very same day served notice under section 143(2) upon assessee, whose signatures tally on the said notice without confronting the assessee with the remand report and the evidence produced by the AO before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, notice issued under section 143(2) was invalid and resultantly, the reassessment proceedings were vitiated and the same were quashed.
Revised/enhanced minimum threshold limit of tax effect of Rs. 50 Lakh vide CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dated 8-8-2019 was applicable not only for appeals to be filed by Revenue in future; but also for appeals already filed by Revenue in ITAT. Therefore, all existing appeals in ITAT, having tax effect below the revised/enhanced limit of Rs. 50,00,000, were to be treated as withdrawn/not pressed; and were, not maintainable.
