AO disallowed 20% of total foreign travel expenses during the year under consideration. CIT(A) recorded that for assessment year 2000-01 and 2001-02 the disallowance was restricted to 10% of the total expenses incurred for foreign travel, against which Revenue preferred appeal to Delhi ITAT.
It is apparent that when the assessee could not establish the genuineness of the impugned transaction before the Assessing Officer that it decided to surrender an amount of Rs. 55 lakh. Thus, the factual matrix indicates that the assessee made the surrender when it had no explanation to offer. Thus, the assessee could not prove the bona fide of its claim.
Where assessee did not furnish any evidence of earning agricultural income shown in return of income merely because assessee was holding agricultural land of 20 bighas would not prove that assessee earned any agricultural income or has any past savings so as to make any investment in the property.
Section 13 comes into play at the time of granting exemption under section 11 and not at the time of granting registration under section 12AA, therefore, CIT was not justified in denying registration on the ground that assessee trust had not got its account audited and not filed its return of income for preceding years.
When motor vehicles are in the gross block of the company and used for business it cannot ipso facto lead to an inference that the depreciation has to be partly disallowed on the assumption that these are partly used for personal use: Claridges Hotels case.
Vidyadayani Shiksha Samiti Vs. CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Delhi) Coming to the powers of the Commissioner as to whether while granting registration under section 12A he is required to examine the books of account etc. or he is only to satisfy himself regarding the objects of the trust and genuineness of the activities of the trust, […]
The jewellery found in possession of the Assessee and his family is within the normal limits of the jewellery which as per the Board’s Circular not to be seized during the search proceeding of the Income Tax Act. Moreover, in the case of Haroon Mohd. Unni Mumbai vs Department of Income Tax, the Assessing Officer conducting the search suo-moto allowed 250 gms. each to the married ladies of the family as their `Streedhan’.
On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.95,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit from an entry operator completely ignoring the findings given by the Honble Delhi High Court in cases like CIT V. Nova Promoters 342 ITR 169, CIT v. NR Portfolio [2013] 29 com 291 (Delhi), CIT v. N Tarika Properties
ITO Vs. Sh. Neeraj Goel (ITAT Delhi) IT(A) has rightly held that the assumption of jurisdiction to frame an assessment or non assumption of jurisdiction to frame an assessment goes to the root of the judicial act of framing an assessment order and in the event of non assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 143(2) of the […]
DCIT Vs Excelex Bio Polymers (P) Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The Assessing Officer held that the non-compete fee cannot be allowed as a revenue expenditure u/s 37(1). He took into consideration the amendment by the Finance Act, 1998 providing for allowance of depreciation on `intangible assets’ in the nature of know-how, patents, copyright, trademarks, licenses, franchises […]
