Vodafone Essar South Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ITAT Delhi I.T.A. No. 3238/Del/2009 A.Y. : 2004- 05 ORDER This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 30.3.2009 pertaining to assessment year 2004-05. 2. The grounds raised read as under:- “On the facts and […]
ACIT Vs. Parablic Drugs Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) – It has to be held that all of these expenditure were incurred by the assessee in the course of its business and none of the expenditure can be classified as expenditure in the nature of capital. The case law relied upon by the ld. AR supports the case of the assessee. Therefore, we found no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) vide which the assessee has been held eligible for deduction of these expenditure under both the sections either u/s 35(1)(i) or u/s 37(1) of the Act.
The revenue is in appeal against the order dated 03.09.2009 passed by ld. CIT(A) in the matter of assessment made by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2006-07.
ACIT Vs M/s Hari Machines Ltd (ITAT Delhi)- Service tax is a recovery on behalf of the company and it has been paid to Government account. Element of service tax cannot be treated as income of the assessee. Assessee is entitled to depreciation u/s 32 on the equipment purchased during the impugned year once a government authority inspecting the equipment, certifies the date of power supply to the equipments and after inspection has permitted energisation of the equipment.
GNG Stock Holdings (P) Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)- When a business is established and is ready to commence business, then it can be said of that business that it is set up. But before it is ready to commence business, it is not set up. In other words, a business cannot be said to be set up before it is ready to commence. The actual commencement of the business may have some interval from the date when the business was set up, but in order to hold that the business is set up, it is to be seen as to whether it was ready to commence though actual commencement might not have been taken place.
DCIT Vs. Jindal Photo Limited (ITAT Delhi)- As per section 14A(2) of the Act, if the AO, having regard to the accounts of the assessee, is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the assessee ’s total income under the Act, the AO shall determine the amount incurred in relation to such income, in accordance with such method as may be prescribed, i.e., under Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules. However, in the present case, the assessment order does not evince any such satisfaction of the AO regarding the correctness of the claim of the assessee.
Italian Thai Development Vs ADIT (ITAT Delhi)- The taxpayer has been computing its estimated revenue as per AS-7 issued by Institute of Chartered Accountants of India since AY 2003-04 on wards and the AO has not objected to this method in the prior years. Therefore, as per the principle of consistency, the same cannot be rejected in the year under consideration. The observations in the auditor’s report do not have a bearing on correctness of books of accounts and cannot form the basis for rejection of books of accounts.
Facts- The taxpayer is a tax resident of Mauritius. BG Exploration & Production India Ltd (BG) is a co-venturer with ONGC Ltd and Reliance Industries Ltd, who are party to the production sharing agreement for Panna, Mukta and South Tapti contract areas.
Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. Vs DCIT The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses on the ground that the payment was made prior to commencement of the hospitality business and had resulted into acquisition of technical know-how and franchise from the professional consultants and hence was capital in nature.
ACIT Vs M/s. Khanna & Annadhanam (ITAT Delhi)- Briefly, the controversy is that assessee is a firm of Chartered Accountants and carrying on profession as such. During the year the assessee had shown a sum of Rs. 1,15,70,000/- in the capital account of the partners as received from an international consultancy firm Deloitte Touche Tohmatu International (DTTI). The amount was not reflected by the assessee in its P&L a/c but directly credited to partners accounts.
