Where assessee had made investment in subsidiary companies not to earn tax free income but out of commercial expediency, no dis allowance under section 14A was called for.
In the case of M/s. A.N. Build well Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT, the ITAT Delhi bench comprising Amit Shukla (JM) and SH. O.P. Kant (AM) was held that if the significant risk and reward are transferred to the buyer, the amount received from the buyer to the extent of the stage of completion of the project has accrued to the Assessee- Builder and it should be subject to tax in terms of section 5 of the Income Tax Act.
Both appeals by assessee are directed against the different orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-12, New Delhi, dated 28-2-2017 for assessment year 2011-2012, challenging the addition on merit as well as levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Assessee cannot be penalized merely on the ground that the six companies as discussed above failed to reply to the notices issued to them under section 133(6) of the Act.
Shri Neeraj Goel Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Addition on account of alleged interest income is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because the document does not mention the name of the assessee, does not bear the signature of the assesee, not in the handwriting of the assessee, documents has imply jottings of certain figures […]
It cannot be said that there was no escapement of income merely because tax was deducted at source on such income. When it is open under Explanation 3 to section 147 of the Act for the AO to reassess the income on any issue which newly comes to his notice subsequent to the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, it cannot be said that mere wrong mentioning of the provision of law relating to the other issues in the reasons recorded would vitiate the proceedings.
DCIT Vs. S.V.S Prop mart Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Assessing Officer has mentioned in the Assessment order about the submissions made by the assessee that the commission was not received by the assessee company on account of dispute with the said party. Since the commission income has not been settled and crystallized, the same has […]
Mr. Tushar Kothari Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The intention behind enacting provisions of Section 2(22)(e) is that closely held companies (i.e. companies in which public are not substantially interested), which are controlled by a group of members, even though the company has accumulated profits would not distribute such profit as dividend because if so distributed […]
ACIT Vs. Sh. Vineet Kumar Kapila (ITAT Delhi) ITAT held that booking of flat with the builder has to be treated as construction of flat by the assessee and hence period of three years would apply for construction of new house from the date of transfer of long term capital asset. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has […]
Understand the scope of Section 153A in the case of Anurag Dalmia Vs DCIT. Analysis of unabated assessments, incriminating material, and additions made post-search.
