DCIT Vs United Info Planet Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) From the perusal of the Rent Agreement dated 30/08/2007, it can be seen that it is with the sole purpose for rent in respect of the entire building to the Multi National company IBM. The Fit Out Agreement dated 18/01/2008 was entered between the parties for […]
Luthra & Luthra Law Offices Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vaish Associates held that the partners were entitled to annual salary equivalent with percentage of profit multiplied by the allocable profit calculated as per the provisions of section 40(b)(v) of the Act. In the instant case also remuneration […]
The estimate of warranty made by the assessee on the basis of past history cannot be treated as a provision for any ascertained liability and allowed the provision for warranty as deduction.
ACIT Vs Shri Rohit Kochar (ITAT Delhi) Disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) of interest expenses not justified on failure to prove direct nexus between interest bearing funds and interest-free advances Conclusion: Disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) was not justified as Revenue had failed to establish any nexus between the interest bearing funds and interest free advances made […]
Enhancement of assessee’s income on account of difference between the purchase price of the shares of NDTV limited at Rs 4 per share and the market price of those shares quoted on recognized stock exchange at Rs. 140 per share was a benefit taxable u/s 56 (2)( vii) as assessee could not justify that there was no motive of tax evasion in the same.
When an HUF’s residential house is sold, the capital gain should be invested for the purchase of only one residential house is an incorrect proposition. After all, the HUF property is held by the members as joint tenants. The members keeping in view the future needs in event of separation, purchase more than one residential building, it cannot be said that the benefit of exemption is to be denied under s. 54(1) of the IT Act.
DCIT Vs Bhaijee Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) In this From the records, it can be clearly seen that the notice has been issued prior to the approval. Thus, reopening u/s 148 is without the approval of the designated authority and as such reassessment itself is bad and without any jurisdiction. The mandatory conditions of […]
M/s. Key Components (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) it is clear that there is a total non-application of mind on the part of the A.O. while recording the reasons for reopening of the assessment. He has recorded incorrect amount which escaped assessment. His conclusion was merely based on observations and information received from DIT […]
DCIT Vs M/s. BMR Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi) The AO in the assessment order was of the view that the amount of Rs. 1.78 crores paid by the assessee to its Director Mr. Sanjay Mehta, and claimed as bonus was not allowable in view of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act because the sum […]
DCIT Vs M/s. Info Edge India Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) From the order of ld. CIT(A), it is clear that the ld. CIT(A) has relied on various decisions and has per the decisions relied by the ld. CIT(A), the ESOP has been treated as Revenue expenditure. The Revenue did not bring any contrary decision against the […]
