In this case of Trend Micro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT Delhi Bench of ITAT observed that whether revenue can argue against the order passed by AO in pursuance to the directions of DRP. The ITAT held that it is not permissible to argue any issue decided by AO by DR before tribunal.
ITAT held in Haier Appliances India Ltd Vs DCIT and Haier Appliances India Ltd Vs ACIT after relying on the case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt Ltd reported in (2015) 374 ITR 118 (Delhi) that the above transaction of AMP
ITAT Delhi held In the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Escorts Construction Equipment Ltd. that we find that this amount represents unpaid sales tax liability and the same was disclosed itself by the assessee as a contingent liability.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of JDIT vs. Mool Chand Kharaiti Ram Trust that Merely because, running of an Allopathic hospital is not specifically mentioned, it does not necessarily mean that the same would be ultra vires the objects
In the case of Travelport LP USA Vs. DDIT Delhi Bench of ITAT observed that assessee has a dependent agent in form of distributor in India and held that assessee has a business connection in India u/s 9(1) (i) of the act and its income is deemed to accrue or arise in India.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of ACIT vs, M/s Amrapali Grand that before a notice under Section 153C can be issued two steps have to be taken. The first step is that the Assessing Officer of the person who is searched must arrive at a clear satisfaction that a document seized from him does not belong to him but to some other person.
In the case of ACIT Vs. Prem Castings Pvt. Ltd. ITAT, Delhi Bench reversed the order of CIT (A) who deleted addition of Rs. 3,46,00,000/- after relying upon the decision of Hon’ble SC in the case of Lovely Exports (216 CTR 195) in which it was held that once the assessee has produced documents regarding
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Xchanging Technology Services India Private Limited. vs, DCIT that the Hon’ble High Court affirmed the conclusion that a captive unit of a comparable company which assumed only a limited risk cannot be compared with a giant company in the area of development
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Eli Lilly & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs, ACIT that a clear distinction has been made between the free samples, gifts, travel facilities, hospitality and cash or monetary grants. It would accordingly be incorrect to put samples in the definition of gifts being separately categorized
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Tsurphu Labrang vs. DIT (Exemptions) that Rule 17A itself provides that it is not necessary that the Institution/Trust should be established under an instrument. The Rule 17A does not prescribe that in case the Institution/Trust
