Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In the present case, there is admission on part of the assessee that the quantum of depreciation claim was incorrectly computed at enhanced cost. It is well settled principle that ignorance of law is not excused and cannot be a ground to avoid tax liability. The Assessee […]
hese are the three appeals filed by the revenue for Assessment Year 2007-08 to 2009-10. The assessee has filed cross objections in all these appeals making it a bunch of six appeals. All these six appeals involved common grounds pertaining to the respondent and therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.
Shaan Construction P Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) ITAT noted that whole exercise carried out by the assessee is simply a devise to introduce unaccounted money through various shell companies in the form of share capital at a premium. The manner of issue of the shares through these companies, the manner of providing confirmation on […]
We find that the additions made by the assessing officer are beyond the scope of section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, because no incriminating material or evidence had been found during the course of search so as to doubt the transactions.
Deduction u/s 10A is to be allowed from total income as computed under chapter IV of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and not at the stage of computation of total income under chapter VI of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore from this it is clear that while claiming deduction u/s 10A unabsorbed depreciation is not to be adjusted.
The CIT(A) is directed to first address the claim of the assessee namely that the online platform itself was not permitting the assessee to register as a legal heir in order to e-file the appeal, thus the assessee cannot be penalized for non compliances which are a result of limitations of the platform provided.
G.D. Agrawal, Vice-President – This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-I, Dehradun dated 21st February, 2013 for the Assessment Year 2009-10.
This appeal is filed by assessee against the Order dated 04.5.2016 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-12, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2004-05 on the following grounds:-
In DCIT, Ghaziabad vs. Kuantum Papers Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) decided on 1.09.2017, Revenue contended that CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the depreciation on paper brands, which is a non-depreciable asset because its life is not limited.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) as erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,04,50,0001- made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 treating the credit in the books of the assessee as unexplained shown as receipt of share application money.
