Income Tax : In the case of Shri Vishal Dipak Shah Vs. Addl. CIT Mumbai Bench of ITAT held that Principle of Res judicata does not apply to the...
Income Tax : ACIT Vs. Sagar Nitin Parikh (ITAT Mumbai) In the instant case, the assessee has constructed a house prior to the date of transfer ...
Income Tax : G. Indhirani Vs. DCIT (ITAT Chennai) The only issue arises for consideration is with regard to levy of fee under Section 234E of t...
Income Tax : In the case of DCIT Vs. Deepak Chaudhary Kolkata Bench of ITAT have held that the assessee has cumulatively satisfied all the cond...
Income Tax : In the case of M/s. Cash Edge India (Pvt.) Ltd., vs. ITO Delhi Bench of ITAT have held that transfer pricing adjustment is not one...
Income Tax : In the case of ITO Vs. M/S JAGDAMBA OPTICS PVT. LTD. Delhi Bench of ITAT have held that there was existence of correct information...
Income Tax : In the case of Eli Lilly & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT Delhi bench of ITAT have held that as there is no change in the facts fo...
Income Tax : In the case of M/s DDRC SRL Diagnostic P Ltd. Vs. ITO Mumbai Bench of ITAT have held that If the hospitals/laboratories act as mer...
In the case of Advance India Projects Ltd. Vs. ACIT Delhi bench of ITAT have held that assessment upon a dissolved company is impermissible as there is no provision in Income-tax Act, 1961 to make an assessment thereupon.
In the case of PVS Multiplex (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT Delhi Bench of ITAT held that CIT can pass order u/s 263 where he can hold that AO did not made adequate inquiry. ITAT observed that there is difference between lack of enquiry and Inadequate Inquiry.
In the case of ACIT Vs. M/s. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ITAT adjudicated two appeals against the order of CIT (A) who allowed the appeal of assessee in part. Both revenue as well as assessee filed appeal against the order of CIT (A).
In the case of M/s Tamil Nadu Cricket Association Vs. DDIT (Ex.) Madras Bench of ITAT have observed the activities carried out by assessee in nature of charitable or business. After detailed examination it was held that assessee did not engaged in any business or commercial activity and hence liable for the exemption u/s 11.
In the case of ACIT Vs. Shivaansh Advertising & Publications Pvt. Ltd. Delhi Bench of ITAT observed the requirements of section 153C provides for taking recourse to assessment in respect of any other person and held the conditions precedent are
In the case of Shri Vishal Dipak Shah Vs. Addl. CIT Mumbai Bench of ITAT held that Principle of Res judicata does not apply to the income-tax proceedings as each assessment year is a separate and self-contained assessment year. Therefore, the plea of the appellant that he should be allowed a relief on the same lines as he was allowed in the AY 2005-06 does not hold good. On the merits ITAT held that shares held by the assessee in the investment portfolio cannot be treated as stock-in-trade and consequently the transactions are in the nature of investment and not trading.
In the case of M/s NYK Line (India) Ltd Vs. Addl. CIT Mumbai Bench of ITAT have held that payment made to professional firm for conducting a Feasibility Study Report for establishing a BPO business for assessee’s own function
In this case of Trend Micro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT Delhi Bench of ITAT observed that whether revenue can argue against the order passed by AO in pursuance to the directions of DRP. The ITAT held that it is not permissible to argue any issue decided by AO by DR before tribunal.
In the case of ACIT Vs. Rukamani Iyer Mumbai Bench of ITAT held that the claim has to be judged in the light of commercial expediency. Relying upon the judgment of CIT v Associated Electrical Agencies {2004} 266 ITR 63 (Mad.)
In the case of Travelport LP USA Vs. DDIT Delhi Bench of ITAT observed that assessee has a dependent agent in form of distributor in India and held that assessee has a business connection in India u/s 9(1) (i) of the act and its income is deemed to accrue or arise in India.
