For the purposes of exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act, the conclusion that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue had to be preceded by some minimal inquiry. In fact, if the ld. PCIT is of the view that the AO did not undertake any inquiry, it becomes incumbent on the LD. PCIT to conduct such inquiry.
M/s Amira Enterprises Ltd. Vs. The Pr. C.I.T. (ITAT Delhi) The assessee had filed various replies to the ld. PCIT in response to notice u/s of the Act 263 of the Act stating that all the issues raised by the PCIT have been examined by the AO during the course of assessment. The PCIT has […]
Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently held that advance given by a company to its Director/ substantial shareholder cannot be considered as deemed dividend for the purpose of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.
Rule 17 of order V of CPC mandates that an independent local person be the witness of service through affixture and for the purpose of having been associated with the identification of the place. However a perusal of the affixture report shows that there was no independent local person as a witness and there is no evidence that anyone identified the place as belonging to the assessee before such affixture.
While dismissing a departmental appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, G bench held that the State Bank of India (SBI) s not bound to deduct tax at source on site restoration fund of ONGC and the interest paid on such fund.
The New Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on yesterday ruled that the amount received as subsidy from the State Government under Capital Investment subsidy is not taxable under the Income Tax Act as it is capital in nature.
Section 273B of the Act provides that in case of a reasonable cause, penalty otherwise exigible, inter alia, u/s 271C of the Act, cannot be imposed.
Merely because 133(6) notices issued to the party returned un-served though it was the same address, which was supplied by supplier while filing its income tax return, no fault can be put on the shoulder of assessee.
ITAT Delhi, last week held that the transaction of making payment of Rs. 95,50,31,150/- (on account of arbitral award) by Hyundai Rotem Company to the DMRC made on behalf of its AE would not part of the margin calculation to be added to revenue and cost for bench marking the international transaction.
While dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue the Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that assessment under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act without jurisdiction when documents seized not belonged to the assessee is invalid.
