In the case of M/s. Cash Edge India (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. ITO Delhi Bench of ITAT have held that transfer pricing adjustment is not one of the adjustments contemplated under Explanation 1 Section 115JB(2) of the Act and, therefore, could not have been added back to the book profits under Section 115JB.
In the case of ITO Vs. M/S JAGDAMBA OPTICS PVT. LTD. Delhi Bench of ITAT have held that there was existence of correct information which prompted to the AO to proceed to issue notice u/s. 148 of and hence, the reassessment proceedings could not be declared as null and void.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Kapoor Singh vs. ACIT that the assessee has not disputed the bank pass book of Shri Sube Singh which was found at his residence during search and seizure operation, neither has he controverted the AO’s finding to the statement of the Bank Manager given in writing that most of the payments have been made by Shri Kapoor Singh and his sons.
The assessee, a Branch of Canara Bank, made interest payment of Rs.201,000,000/- to New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (herewith ‘NOIDA’), a creation of the UP Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, without withholding any tax at source.
In the case of Eli Lilly & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT Delhi bench of ITAT have held that as there is no change in the facts for the instant assessment year, the AO/DRP is directed to include EDCIL (the company excluded by TPO) in the final set of comparable companies.
Raj Hans Towers Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- ITO (ITAT Delhi) There is no tangible material, which come to the possession of the AO to lead to the conclusion that there was an escapement of income from assessment.
The return of income was filed on 31.10.2005 at an income of Rs. 4,04,020/- for AY 2005-06. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO took note of the fact that the assessee and his wife purchased property at front and rear side of portion at ground floor for a consideration of 40 Lakh each and 3,20,000 was paid as stamp duty on each portion.
In the case of M/s. Equant Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT Delhi Bench of ITAT remanded back the matter and held that DRP has not met the contention of the assessee in respect of inclusion/exclusion of comparable in its order.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO that there is no dispute that for purchasing the property at Munirka for a consideration of Rs.9,37,33,600, the assessee had taken loan from HDFC Bank for Rs.6.50 crores on which the authorities below have allowed the interest paid by the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Avaya India (P) Ltd. vs ACIT that a perusal of the annual report of company reveals that the said company has made income from sale of license to the tune of more than Rs.1 crore,
