M/s Nikon India (Pvt) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In the light of various case laws & on bare reading of the provision prescribed in Act: ITAT held that as AMP is an international Transaction and TPO is having jurisdiction over it even without any reference is made by A.O.
ITAT Delhi in DCIT Vs Deepsons Southend held that if there is change in the profit sharing ratio of the partnership and all the partners remain same in the new partnership deed then that would not be change in the constitution of the firm so the loss of the firm could be carried forward.
ITAT New Delhi held in ACIT Vs Phonix Lamps India Ltd that if the assessee was selling its final product to particular parties continuously and there was no return of the final product. Moreover there was no complaint of any defect in the finished product.
In the case of M/s. Cash Edge India (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. ITO Delhi Bench of ITAT have held that transfer pricing adjustment is not one of the adjustments contemplated under Explanation 1 Section 115JB(2) of the Act and, therefore, could not have been added back to the book profits under Section 115JB.
In the case of ITO Vs. M/S JAGDAMBA OPTICS PVT. LTD. Delhi Bench of ITAT have held that there was existence of correct information which prompted to the AO to proceed to issue notice u/s. 148 of and hence, the reassessment proceedings could not be declared as null and void.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Kapoor Singh vs. ACIT that the assessee has not disputed the bank pass book of Shri Sube Singh which was found at his residence during search and seizure operation, neither has he controverted the AO’s finding to the statement of the Bank Manager given in writing that most of the payments have been made by Shri Kapoor Singh and his sons.
The assessee, a Branch of Canara Bank, made interest payment of Rs.201,000,000/- to New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (herewith ‘NOIDA’), a creation of the UP Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, without withholding any tax at source.
In the case of Eli Lilly & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT Delhi bench of ITAT have held that as there is no change in the facts for the instant assessment year, the AO/DRP is directed to include EDCIL (the company excluded by TPO) in the final set of comparable companies.
Raj Hans Towers Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- ITO (ITAT Delhi) There is no tangible material, which come to the possession of the AO to lead to the conclusion that there was an escapement of income from assessment.
The return of income was filed on 31.10.2005 at an income of Rs. 4,04,020/- for AY 2005-06. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO took note of the fact that the assessee and his wife purchased property at front and rear side of portion at ground floor for a consideration of 40 Lakh each and 3,20,000 was paid as stamp duty on each portion.
