Parnami Pump & Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Bogus Purchases Cannot Be Wholly Disallowed Without Disallowing Sales Only Gross Profit (GP) Rate Should Be Added as Undisclosed Income We find that the Assessing Officer had issued summons u/s.131 to the proprietor of the said entity from whom assessee has made purchases, but that […]
Approval given by approving authority for reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was without due application of mind and in mechanical manner – reassessment should be quashed.
Since there was no separate payment made for the purchase of software embedded in mobile phones, therefore, no TDS to be deducted under Section 195 for software embedded in mobile phones imported by assessee during the previous year.
The only issue in the appeal is the denial of deduction claimed by the assessee under section 54 and 54F of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that, firstly, the assessee has earned capital gain and has invested the same in purchase of a residential plot; secondly, the assessee has made a total investment of Rs.63,03,005/- which is more than the exemption of Rs.52,90,424/- claimed by her
Line of judicial view is that the Revenue cannot be permitted to contend that there is a CBDT instruction No. 03/2010 dated 23/3/2010 to the contrary. No CBDT circular or instruction can be contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, even subsequent to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence would not confer jurisdiction upon AO who otherwise was not the AO of assessee, therefore, notice issued under section 148 was quashed and since reopening was quashed, subsequent orders passed on account of such reopening were also quashed.
Making of wrong claim due to inadvertent clerical error committed by Chartered Accountant could not be classified as furnishing of inaccurate particulars so as to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) when assessee had voluntarily filed revised computation and AO had completed assessment on the basis of details furnished by assessee.
The onetime payment of the annual rent as per the lease deed is rightly claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer was not right in holding that the payment during the year relates to land which is capital in nature.
ACIT Vs Educomp Infrastructure & School Management Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) it is beyond doubt that the relevant capital asset in the form of the building of the assessee corresponding to the expenditure not incurred actually by those two contractors mentioned above, did not come into existence and thus the assessee cannot be entitled for depreciation […]
NKC Projects (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) It could be seen from the assessment order that while dealing with the issue of allowability of the bank guarantee commission, learned Assessing Officer held that on identical facts in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2011-12 an addition under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act was […]
