ITO Vs. Late Sh. Ram Kumar (ITAT Delhi) It is observed from the assessment order passed by Ld. AO that Ld. AO was well informed regarding the demise of assessee. He was supposed to bring the legal heirs on record as per the details submitted before him during assessment proceedings itself. Once the non-existence of […]
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in its recent order deleted late Fee levied on ground of TDS default since it is committed prior to 1st June 2015.
AO has treated the subscription of ICD as a loan which in our understanding is not a correct way to interpret an ICD, because it is a deposit made by the subscriber of the ICD issued by a company on a fixed rate of interest and hence it cannot be treated as a loan.
AO admitted that the entire amount which was added to income of assessee on protective basis was already assessed in the hands of the overseas companies on substantive basis
On the facts and circumstanced of the case, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,21,09,600 holding that the provision of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be invoked in this case when there was a transfer of immovable property in view of the provisions of section 2(47)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that Rule 8D cannot be invoked in the case of the assessee and in directing the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs.3,55,234/- made u/s 14A r.w.Rule 8D.
These two appeals filed by the assessee relate to the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14. Since common issue is raised in both the appeals, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
Dy. DIT (IT) Vs weatherford Oil Tools (ME) Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) On Issue relating to the service tax, learned AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdiction High Court in the case of CIT vs Mitchell Drilling International P. Ltd. 380 ITR 130 in support of his contention that the service-tax being statutory […]
Delhi ITAT held that mere entry in the books of accounts and classifying the said payment as capital, i.e., it has been capitalised in the books will not at all be determinative as it has to be seen on the facts whether such a payment or expenditure falls in the capital filed or revenue field.
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The royalty paid to Suzuki Motor Corporation Japan by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. for the use of licensed information held to be revenue expenditure
