If the investments are not made from borrowed funds, then there should not be any disallowance. Since in this case it was evidenced from the records and evidence s that the income accured was from internal accruals consequently addition deleted
In the Case of ACIT v Akhil Jain, ITAT Delhi held that no interest will be levied u/s 234B during the Block Assessment by the virtue of Section 158BF.
In the cited case, ITAT inter-alia held in the light of the main provisions of section 43B read with Explanations 3C and 3D that the interest payable to banks and other financial institutions can be allowed as deduction only ‘if such interest has been actually paid
Delhi ITAT held in the case of Smt. Rutu Jindal Vs. ACIT, that if no statement has been recorded at the time of search and where there is no occasion for the assessee to state the fact at the time of search, the addition can not be made without taking in to account the fact of the case which is stated during the appellate proceedings.
ITAT New Delhi in the case of ITO (TDS) Vs. Nokia India P. Ltd. held that the payments made by the assessee company to Finland based as a consideration for review of design , construction and quality control plans from outside India are not in the nature of fee for technical services as defined in Article 13 of DTAA between India and Finland.
It was held by ITAT delhi in the case of SC Jhonson Products Private Limited Vs. DCIT, that framing of assessment against a non existing entity/person is not a procedural irregularity but a jurisdictional defect and can not be cured by application of Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In the present case services were provided by the non-resident individuals so article 15 was applicable but the pre-requisite condition that the each non-resident individual had to be present in India for more than 90 days which was not ascertained.
ITAT Delhi has held in the case of Perfect Paradise Emporium Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO that If creditors are found bogus then the amount can be added back to income u/s 68 as unexplained cash credits or us 41(1) as business income.
Claim cannot be denied if sufficient documents are in hand of AO even though the party does not reply to notice issued u/s 133(6); (even though the party confirmation is not available against notice issued u/s 133(6)).
In the case of HCL Technologies BPO Services Ltd vs. ACIT, ITAT has held that for transfer pricing only amount retained by associates from end user is to be taken into account for transfer pricing adjustment, and to adjust operating cost by excluding abnormal cost incurred on a/c of Startup Company like salary, rent, and depreciation.
