Dy. CIT Vs Maan Aluminum Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The undisputed fact is that the assessee had paid commission to two non-residents on export orders procured by them. It is also undisputed that the non resident agents did not have any permanent establishment or permanent place in India and the agents operated from outside India. It is […]
Where assessee had not earned any tax-free income, then, corresponding expenditure also could not be worked out for dis allowance.
CIT is not justified in rejecting registration on the ground that the non-production of books and vouchers means that the genuineness of the charitable activities cannot be verified. The CIT is entitled only to examine the objects of the trust at the stage of registration and not the books of account
ITO (E) Vs. M/s Young Women’s Christian Association of Delhi (ITAT Delhi) Unrecognized courses are also comes within the meaning of education or in other words, it can be said that the charitable purposes includes relief to the poor, education (yoga), medical relief, preservation of environment and preservation of monuments or placed or objects of […]
It is seen that the grounds on which the ALP determined by the assessee has been rejected are reasonably debatable. The assessee had obtained a transfer pricing study from an outside expert and the objectivity of the same was not called into question.
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.07.2013 passed by the CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi in appeal No. 03/12-13 for the AY 1997-98 passed u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short].
Commissioner (Appeals) therefore, rightly noted that there is no law that more than one Company cannot have its Registered Office at one address. The Companies could have change their address later on.
These two appeals are filed by the Revenue and the assessee respectively challenging the order dated 18-12-2012 in Appeal No. 495/09-10/284 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-XXXIII, New Delhi (hereinafter for short called as the learned Commissioner (Appeals)).
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified, where both the assessment order and show cause notice failed to state the specific charge of concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by assessee.
Just because the trust has been formed for complying CSR requirements it cannot per se be the reasons for denying registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act.
