ITAT Delhi held In the case of Honda Trading Corporation. vs, DCIT that despite the use of the word `may’, the time limit for passing the order by the TPO is mandatory, as in the otherwise situation of the TPO having been allowed more time by implication
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Alcatel-Lucent Technologies. vs, DCIT that merely because the assessee in the TP study had included the comparable, which was accepted by TPO, it does not follow that the assessee cannot resile from its original claim at a later stage of proceeding
ITAT Delhi held in case of ACIT Vs. PTC Industries Ltd. ITAT held that when expenditure claimed is genuine then penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) cannot be levied. ITAT relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Product Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 36 DTR 449 (SC) wherein it was held that merely because of the assessee’s claim
ITAT Delhi held In the case of M/s. Continental Device India Ltd. vs. ACIT that Explanation 3 to section 43(1) is not an absolute rule. The Assessing Officer is empowered to substitute the value. However, such a valuation cannot be substituted where there is no intent to reduce the tax liability.
Hon’ble ITAT decided in this matter that reopening without application of mind is liable to quash and also elaborate that examination of facts and information received is necessary before reopening. In addition to this legal ground ITAT also heard the appeal on merits
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. vs. ADIT that the said issue is already covered in favour of the assessee by tribunal decision given in earlier years in which the tribunal held that the contracts are divisible.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of M/s. Mohair Investment and Trading Company (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT that it is clear that the present issue, related to application of section 14A, especially in relation to shares held as trading assets
The Assessee was engaged in the manufacturing of readymade garments and export to foreign countries. The Assessee had filed the Income Tax Return, declaring an income of Rs. 11,82,236/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
Chopra Properties Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) AO was of the view that according to provisions of Section 44AB assessee is required to get his accounts audited before specified date and not on the specified date. Therefore, as assessee has obtained this tax audit report on 30th September 2008 and not before 30th September, 2008, therefore, levied penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- u/s 271B of the IT Act.
JCIT Vs. Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) In the above group cases search was conducted and assessments were framed u/s 153A/143 (3). The search was conducted on 21.03.2007 and concluded on 22.03.2007. Hence last of the authorisation of search u/s 132 was executed on 22.03.2007.
