In the petition for admission of additional evidence it is submitted on behalf of department that the Linkedin Profile of employees of Assessee are available in public domain and down loaded from the web site of internet and the source is indicated against the same.
Where a search is initiated u/s 132 of the Act etc., the A.O shall issue a notice requiring the person searched etc. to furnish his return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year
Assessee has not concealed anything in this regard. Therefore, it cannot be a case of concealment of facts. As far as the filing of inaccurate particulars of income is concerned, we hold that assessee was having huge carry forward losses and depreciation and the return was filed at nil income.
Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Dinesh Jain has held that Penalty u/s. 271E is leviable if a person repays any loan, otherwise, than in accordance with provisions of section 269T. As per section 269T no person shall repay the loan otherwise, than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft drawn in the name of the person who has made the loan.
ITAT Delhi ruling in Divya Devi vs. ACIT: Jewellery rebate as per CBDT’s Instruction No. 1916. Download full text of the order. Date: 16-05-2014.
Issue for consideration is in relation to allowing deduction under sec. 54 of the Act in respect of the whole of the amount invested by the assessee in the purchase of residential house. The assessee purchased residential property at C-602, The Residency, Ardee City, Gurgaon in joint name with his wife Smt. Ritu Verma and claimed deduction under sec. 54 of the Act in respect of amount of Rs. 80,00,000/- invested in residential property.
whether or not addition of Rs 5,739.60 crores (Rs 5739,60,05,089) made by the Assessing Officer with respect to the disallowance of loss on transfer of telecom infrastructure is justified, tenable in law and on the facts of this case.
ACIT vs. Shri Damodar Dass Batra (ITAT Delhi) – The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,23,263/- made by the A.O. without considering the fact that these commission expenses are bogus and fictitious and could not be fully substantiated by the assessee.
ITAT Delhi has held in the case of Smiti Golyan Vs. ITO that As per provisions of sec. 48 of the I.T. Act in case of acquisition of the property by way of gift or inheritance the cost of acquisition of the property will be the same as in the hands of the original owner/ transferor/donor.
The issue is as to whether the payment in question can be termed as commission paid for rendering services by the bank to the assessee for the recovery of the bill amount and so, whether TDS was deductible thereon u/s 194H and whether non-compliance thereof has rightly resulted
