Petronet LNG Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) When the document is sent by speed post and when the same is not returned to the sender by the postal department, the presumption is that it has been served on the assessee.
The facts on this issue are that the original assessment was completed by the ACIT, Circle-1, Dehradun u/s 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2010. The reasons recorded by the Id. AO (copy has been placed
Global Realty Heritage Venture (Cochin) (P.) Ltd., vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) In the absence of any such evidence the plea of bonafide belief in the peculiar circumstances cannot be discarded. It is seen that the assessee has consistently canvassed that there was a bonafide belief that the amount taken
Ms. Meenakshi Aggarwal vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) ITAT held that the non-issue of notice u/s. 143(2) after filing of the return of the Assessee, by way of letter, makes the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 bad in law.
M/s. A. T. Kearney India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) Profits and gains u/s 10A were not to be included in the income of the assessee at all and as such the question of setting off of loss of assessee of any profits
MVL Industries Ltd. vs. D.C.I.T. (ITAT Delhi)- Provisions of section 14A are to prevent claims of deduction of expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income of the assessee; that these provisions are enacted to ensure that only expenses incurred
Interest received by the assessee on account of delay in the payment of money due to it cannot be taxed separately but only as an income from business. Mehta Construction Co. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi), ITA No. 3967/Del/2010, Date of pronouncement: 16.10.2015
Mehta Construction Co. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Assessing Officer was driven to reject the book results, mainly on the ground that the profit returned on the contract receipt is very low and no stock register was maintained.
The facts emanating from the order of the AO and the submissions of the assessee is that the assessee is a Co-operative Bank and is engaged in banking business and the assessee was claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) up to AY 2006-07 @ 100%.
The Kangra Co-operative Bank Vs. JCIT (ITAT Delhi) The Assessing Officer disallowed the bad debts written off of Rs. 20,24,842/- on the ground that the amount of deduction claimed and allowed under the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act for bad and doubtful debts of Rs. 3 8,00,870/- is more
