ITAT Delhi held In the case of JDIT vs. Mool Chand Kharaiti Ram Trust that Merely because, running of an Allopathic hospital is not specifically mentioned, it does not necessarily mean that the same would be ultra vires the objects
In the case of Travelport LP USA Vs. DDIT Delhi Bench of ITAT observed that assessee has a dependent agent in form of distributor in India and held that assessee has a business connection in India u/s 9(1) (i) of the act and its income is deemed to accrue or arise in India.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of ACIT vs, M/s Amrapali Grand that before a notice under Section 153C can be issued two steps have to be taken. The first step is that the Assessing Officer of the person who is searched must arrive at a clear satisfaction that a document seized from him does not belong to him but to some other person.
In the case of ACIT Vs. Prem Castings Pvt. Ltd. ITAT, Delhi Bench reversed the order of CIT (A) who deleted addition of Rs. 3,46,00,000/- after relying upon the decision of Hon’ble SC in the case of Lovely Exports (216 CTR 195) in which it was held that once the assessee has produced documents regarding
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Xchanging Technology Services India Private Limited. vs, DCIT that the Hon’ble High Court affirmed the conclusion that a captive unit of a comparable company which assumed only a limited risk cannot be compared with a giant company in the area of development
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Eli Lilly & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs, ACIT that a clear distinction has been made between the free samples, gifts, travel facilities, hospitality and cash or monetary grants. It would accordingly be incorrect to put samples in the definition of gifts being separately categorized
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Tsurphu Labrang vs. DIT (Exemptions) that Rule 17A itself provides that it is not necessary that the Institution/Trust should be established under an instrument. The Rule 17A does not prescribe that in case the Institution/Trust
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Honda Trading Corporation. vs, DCIT that despite the use of the word `may’, the time limit for passing the order by the TPO is mandatory, as in the otherwise situation of the TPO having been allowed more time by implication
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Alcatel-Lucent Technologies. vs, DCIT that merely because the assessee in the TP study had included the comparable, which was accepted by TPO, it does not follow that the assessee cannot resile from its original claim at a later stage of proceeding
ITAT Delhi held in case of ACIT Vs. PTC Industries Ltd. ITAT held that when expenditure claimed is genuine then penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) cannot be levied. ITAT relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Product Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 36 DTR 449 (SC) wherein it was held that merely because of the assessee’s claim
