That the order passed by Assessing Officer (‘AO’) dated 30.12.2016 as upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’) dated 29.12.2017 and the additions/disallowances made and upheld are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction.
ITAT held that, if book profit and tax payable u/s 115JB was based on certificate issued by Chartered Accountant then it cannot be held that, assesses claim was not bonafide or it has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, penalty so levied deleted.
Investments on whom dividend received, though chargeable to tax but allowed as rebate in view of DTAA agreement cannot be included for the purpose of computing disallowance u/s 14A of Income Tax Act.
The assessee company was engaged in the business of Developing, Maintaining and Operating of Infrastructure Facilities. Return declaring an income of Rs. 29,53,100/- was filed on 30/09/2009. The same was processed u/s 143(1) on 13/09/2010. Case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) was sent on 20/08/2010.
Security deposit for taking office space on lease and subsequently terminating the agreement due to business consideration was a business decision and loss on account of forfeiture of security deposit had occurred in the course of business and was, therefore, allowable.
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 30/01/2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 2(2)(2) (International Tax), New Delhi (in short the Assessing Officer) in pursuant to order of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) for assessment year 2012-13. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under
Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) CBDT itself in two of its circulars. In Circular No. 4/2008 dated 28th April 2008 it was clarified that Service tax paid by the tenant doesn’t partake the nature of income of the landlord. The landlord only acts as a collecting agency for Government for […]
Huawei Telecommunication (India) Company Pvt Ltd, Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In the trading and installation services of the telecom equipment, The assessee provides warranty to the buyers. As part of the contract with the customers, it is required to provide warranty services by way of repair and replacement for a predefined period. The obligation of […]
The appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.03.2017 of the learned CIT(A)-40, Delhi. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal
1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur dated 21.09.2017 for the Assessment Year 2008-09 to 2010-11.
