Assessee was engaged in the field of providing insurance & Human Resources services to its associated enterprise in UK. The Ld. AO /TPO made an addition to the income of the assessee by comparing the income of the assessee with the income of the comparable companies
ITAT Delhi has held in the case of ITO vs. M/s Factor Power Ltd that Interest Earned on Fund Raised Through Share Capital for installation of thermal power plant , which is been deposited temporarily in bank as fund were lying idle, with a motive to reduce the capital cost of thermal power plant
The ITAT ,Delhi in the case of. ITO vs. Pandit Vijay Kant Sharma concluded that The limitation period of six months and not one year is applicable in case the penalty order is passed by the AO pursuant to confirmation of penalty by the tribunal
AO made the disallowance by invoking the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act, however nothing was brought on record on the basis of the comparative analysis to substantiate that the commission paid to the related parties was higher than the commission paid to unrelated parties.
The reopening has basically been done for two reasons – the first one being the alleged difference between Unsecured Loans from Directors in the Balance Sheet and Unsecured Loans from Directors in Audit Report under Form 3CD; and the second one
In the case of M/s ONS Creations Private Limited Vs. ITO, it was held by ITAT Delhi that if additional evidence can not be produced before AO for a reasonable cause by assessee, the CIT (A) must admit the additional evidences and assessee must be given an afresh opportunity of being heard.
In the case of Ms. Meena Rani Vs. ACIT, It was held by ITAT Delhi that If no satisfaction note has been recorded in the records of the searched persons but in the records of the assessee, assessment cannot be done U/s 153C
Issue before tribunal: Whether CIT can assume jurisdiction u/s 263 on the facts and circumstances of the case. Whether order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
In the case of ITO Vs. Sh. Mahender Singh, ITAT Delhi has held that addition cannot be made for Cash deposits in the bank account received against sale of land as undisclosed investment for mere failure of Assessee to Produce
In the present case also the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2010 in the name of the deceased assessee and claimed to have been served upon the deceased assessee who had already expired on 06.12.2002.
