Ms. Meenakshi Aggarwal vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) ITAT held that the non-issue of notice u/s. 143(2) after filing of the return of the Assessee, by way of letter, makes the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 bad in law.
M/s. A. T. Kearney India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) Profits and gains u/s 10A were not to be included in the income of the assessee at all and as such the question of setting off of loss of assessee of any profits
MVL Industries Ltd. vs. D.C.I.T. (ITAT Delhi)- Provisions of section 14A are to prevent claims of deduction of expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income of the assessee; that these provisions are enacted to ensure that only expenses incurred
Interest received by the assessee on account of delay in the payment of money due to it cannot be taxed separately but only as an income from business. Mehta Construction Co. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi), ITA No. 3967/Del/2010, Date of pronouncement: 16.10.2015
Mehta Construction Co. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Assessing Officer was driven to reject the book results, mainly on the ground that the profit returned on the contract receipt is very low and no stock register was maintained.
The facts emanating from the order of the AO and the submissions of the assessee is that the assessee is a Co-operative Bank and is engaged in banking business and the assessee was claiming deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) up to AY 2006-07 @ 100%.
The Kangra Co-operative Bank Vs. JCIT (ITAT Delhi) The Assessing Officer disallowed the bad debts written off of Rs. 20,24,842/- on the ground that the amount of deduction claimed and allowed under the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act for bad and doubtful debts of Rs. 3 8,00,870/- is more
DCIT vs. M/s. State Farms Corporation of India Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Reasons had been taken from the facts disclosed in the assessee’s balance sheet as well as reflected in the Profit & Loss account which were also before the AO at the time of original assessment
According to Section 151(1) proviso if the Assessing Authority who is below the rank of Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner want to reopen the ‘case after the expiry of 4 years unless the Commissioner is satisfied that it is a fit case for issue of that notice. In the present case
The present appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the orders of CIT(A), Faridabad, dated 27.12.2011 and 20.12.2012 passed for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 1321/Del/2012
