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 these cases there are 18 different assessees who filed appeal before ITAT aggrieved from the order u/s 263 passed by CITs. In original proceedings AO passed orders with nominal additions after investigation by way of summoning various subscribers to share capital of assessee companies.
In the case of Brahamanand Agarwal, Thekhedar Vs. DCIT Jaipur Bench of ITAT have held that when net profit is estimated by AO by rejecting the book result U/s 145(3) of the Act, no separate addition can be made on account of cash creditor.
CBDT Instruction No. 5/2014 dated 10.07.2014 on subject of monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable on pending cases also- ACIT Vs. Suncity Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT DELHI)
No effort or any arguments have been advanced by the Revenue to justify that the expenses were unreasonable and excessive. In the absence of any justification for making a 5% disallowance of the total expenses for royalty
Revenue challenged the order passed by ITAT which confirmed the order of CIT (A) that expenditure incurred i.e. payment of royalty for technical knowhow in terms of Technical Collaboration Agreement (TCA Agreement) is an allowable expenditure as no benefit was obtained by the Assessee for the period beyond the relevant assessment years.
Revenue challenged the order passed by ITAT majorly on three grounds. Firstly, on ground of adopting value of property as per the value provided by registered valuer instead of value adopted by AO on the basis of report of DVO.
In this case ITAT examined that whether Arm’s Length Price (ALP) adjustments will also be warranted in case of interest free loans extended as quasi capital and what are the connotations of expression ‘quasi capital’ in the context of the transfer pricing legislation.
Dheeraj Amin Vs. ACIT (ITAT Banglore),- In this case ITAT examined the issue that where an assessee entered into an land development agreement by holding land as stock-in-trade, the expected business profits arose as a result of agreement can be taxed as income from capital gain.
In this case the constitutional validity of section 234E of the Act was challenged. Hon’ble HC has followed the decision of Hon’ble Bombay HC in the matter of Rashmikant Kundalia and ors. V/s Union of India & ors. (2015) 229 Taxman 596 (Bom) where the Hon’ble court has upheld the validity of Section 234E of the Income Tax Act
Tribunal examined that whether addition can be made on account of net increase in the assessee’s capital during the year on account of write back as well as write off of some old credits and debits appearing in her accounts.
