Excise Duty : In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that Section 35FF of the Excise Act indicates that interest ...
Corporate Law : In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court quashed the proceedings under Section 385 of IPC pertaining to extortion as...
Corporate Law : Unravel the Rahul Gupta vs CPIO case where the CIC upheld that public authorities are not obliged to provide opinions or advice u...
Corporate Law : Rajasthan High Court upheld order of Electricity Ombudsman, which allowed recovery of transformation losses and pro-rata transform...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held in case of DCIT v Hitz FM Radio India Ltd. that expenditure related to licence fee and royalty which helps merely ...
Appeals filed by the assessee were withdrawn. The Revenue filed the appeal. Facts of the case were that the assessee company was engaged in the business of running a mall. A TDS survey was conducted on 15-11-2012 during which it was observed that the assessee company had deducted tax on professional fees u/s.194J at lower rate than as required by the section.
When reassessment proceedings were started and ended by passing a reassessment order u/s 147/143(3) of the Act, then original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act and appeal against that order does not survive for adjudication and the same was correctly dismissed by the CIT(A).
Mohini Originals v. ITO (ITAT Delhi) Facts of the Case The Assessee was an EOU filed its return of income, where AO observed that they have claimed exemption under section 10B which was allowed at the time of Assessment. Deduction on duty drawback was also allowed. However, in the proceedings for the next year A.O. […]
The Hon’ble Tribunal held that the DVO has estimated the cost of investment at Rs.3,58,39,100/- against the cost of investment declared by the assessee at Rs.3,47,12,678/-. Therefore, the difference is about 3.24% and for this minor difference, no addition is called for. Since the difference is very nominal, no addition is called for in this regard.
The sole basis of the Department to assess profit of Rs.70.00 lacs is based upon the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. It is a matter of fact that by the time statement was recorded, the entire project was not sold by the assessee. Only two shops were sold.
Mere cash deposit in the bank account of the creditor cannot be said that the creditor has no creditworthiness. Then by disagreeing by the other decisions the Hon’ble Tribunal held that in the present case, not even a notice was issued by the Assessing Officer to the creditors to examine and verify the case of the assessee regarding creditworthiness and identity of the creditors.
During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had received a loan of Rs.30.00 lakhs in cash on 10.05.2009 thereby violating the provisions of section 269S of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, penalty notice u/s 271D of the I.T. Act was issued to the assessee on 25.04.2013 which was duly served on the assessee.
The Hon’ble Tribunal held that all the persons questioned have confirmed that cheques have been handed over to the appellant only as a measure of security for supply of scrap or for the purpose of obtaining the loan, but all of them have denied having obtained any loan from the appellant. The statements given by those people remains uncontroverted.
The Hon’ble Tribunal agreeing to the contentions of the assessee held that regarding GBR, payments made to them were only towards reimbursement of shipment charges and therefore, no tax was deducted at source. Assessee did not attract the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as reimbursement of expenses do not consist the income of the recipient
The Hon’ble Tribunal while relying on the Judgment of co-ordinate Bench in the Assessee’s own case which was having similar facts in which it was observed that the advance was treated as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) because it was converted as advance in the name of assessee merely through book entries and actually no money
