ITAT Delhi held In the case of ACIT vs. Smt. Divya Jain that the adoption of Fair Market Value of share in lieu of value of sale consideration as declared by the assessee is not valid . There is no provision under the law to include prospective benefit in the ambit of the word income.
DCM Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) AO has neither recorded his satisfaction nor given reasons as to how the claim of expenditure in relation to tax free income has not been correctly made by the assessee as envisaged under section 14A(2).
Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)- In view of ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governer (312 ITR 254), while the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting, the loss suffered by the assessee by fluctuation in the foreign exchange as on the date of balance sheet is an item of expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Lakshya Seth vs. ITO that CIT cannot remand the matter to the AO to decide whether findings recorded are erroneous. In the case where there is inadequate inquiry but not lack of inquiry
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce vs. ACIT that any loss arising to banks on account of classification of securities form one category to another category in compliance with RBI directions is an allowable expense.
ITAT held in Sumitomo Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT that if the case of assessee was decided in the earlier assessment years and if the facts and circumstances were same as in the previous years ,then in the current year also same basis for assessment should be adopted.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of ITO (E) vs. M/s Calorex Foundation that application of income is not computation of income and the provisions of application of income would come into play after only the income chargeable to tax is determined
Petronet LNG Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) When the document is sent by speed post and when the same is not returned to the sender by the postal department, the presumption is that it has been served on the assessee.
The facts on this issue are that the original assessment was completed by the ACIT, Circle-1, Dehradun u/s 143(3) of the Act. Thereafter a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2010. The reasons recorded by the Id. AO (copy has been placed
Global Realty Heritage Venture (Cochin) (P.) Ltd., vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) In the absence of any such evidence the plea of bonafide belief in the peculiar circumstances cannot be discarded. It is seen that the assessee has consistently canvassed that there was a bonafide belief that the amount taken
