ITAT Delhi held that addition of unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act sustained as the appellant failed to provide any explanation with regard to the nature and source of the credit.
ITAT Delhi held that as per partnership deep, partners shall be entitled to interest on their loan accounts with the firm at the prescribed rates, hence disallowance of the same is unjustified.
GK Steel & Wire Products Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The main contention of the assessee is that the value of the opening stock of the assessee has gone down resulting in gross loss of Rs.25,32,724/-. The ld. Counsel submits that this is because due to rust stock and the sales realization was lower than the […]
Assessee is not a recipient but payer of loan. Hence, as per provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act, assessee was not liable to tax
ITAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on a highly debatable issue is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Delhi held that depreciation on goodwill cannot be rejected merely because performance didn’t match projections. Notably, valuation of goodwill on discounted cash flow method was duly accepted by AO.
Ashok Kumar Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) ITAT observed that the assessee has replaced old bulbs/tube lights with new LED lights. Some other expenditure was incurred for regular repair and replacement. Thus, from the nature of expenditure incurred, it is evident that they are in the nature of consumables and not for acquiring any assets […]
Undisputedly, invoking the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has treated the difference between the sale price and FMV of the shares of the assessee as income of the assessee.
Laxmi Narain Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) In the present case there is no dispute regarding the fact the assessee deposited Rs. 10,49,000/- in cash on 18.11.2016 during demonetization period and the AO picked up said amount for making addition in the hands of assessee u/s. 69A of the Act. From the copies of the order […]
Impugned order was passed by CIT(A) in absence of assessee. Assessee did not get an opportunity to represent his case before CIT(A)
