ITAT Delhi held In the case of M/s National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. (NAFED) vs. JCIT that there is no qualitative difference between the two situations, viz., first, in which no enforceable liability to pay is created in the first instance, and second
In case of ITO Vs. M/s. Northern India Transport Company the Appellate Tribunal of New Delhi has held that Assessment Order Passed by the Assessing Officer having no jurisdiction to Assess the entity is null and void.
ITAT New Delhi held In the case of Tristar Intech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT that for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) there should be concealment of income on the part of assessee. In the given case AO has initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c)
ITAT New Delhi held In the case of Venus Financial Services Ltd. vs. ACIT that the Assessing Officer has no power to replace the value of the consideration agreed between the parties with any fair market value or estimation.
ITAT held in ACIT Vs Ms Shyam Basic that if the assessee had made a wrong claim in the return of income but had furnished full particulars in its return of income then it would not amount to concealment if income and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not be levied.
ITAT New Delhi held in Indo Count Industries Ltd Vs DCIT( ITAT New Delhi) that it all depends upon the facts of the case that whether the assesse was eligible to claim exemption u/s 10B for all the units as a single entity or every unit was independently eligible to claim exemption u/s 10B as a separate unit.
ITAT Delhi held in M/s Sundowner offshore International (Bermuda) Ltd Vs ADIT (International Taxation, Dehradun) that for calculating the gross receipts for sec 44BB, reimbursement of service tax not to be included in gross receipts and 10% of the total gross receipts without considering the service tax would be taken as taxable income of the assesse.
ITAT Delhi held in Siem Offshore Inc Vs Dy. DIT (International Taxation) that any payment received (whether in India or outside India) by an assessee who falls within sec 44BB would be taxed as per the provisions contained u/s 44BB. So the reimbursement of expenses would also be taxed u/s 44BB.
ITAT Delhi Has held In the case of Piyush Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Others vs. ACIT, that despite search and seizure no adverse material was found to substantiate the disallowance made by the A.O. The purchases which are disallowed relate to cement and steel which are essential for the purpose
ITAT Delhi has held In the case of M/s Chemical Sales and Services vs. ITO that the only condition for claiming deduction under section 36(1 )(iii) is commercial expediency of the expenditure incurred and once the said condition is fulfilled
