Income Tax : ITAT Delhi in DCIT Vs Deepsons Southend held that if there is change in the profit sharing ratio of the partnership and all the pa...
Income Tax : ITAT New Delhi held in ACIT Vs Phonix Lamps India Ltd that if the assessee was selling its final product to particular parties con...
Income Tax : ITAT Chandigarh held in Lakshmi Energy & Foods Products Ltd Vs The ACIT that if the assessee was following mercantile method of ac...
Income Tax : 1.ITAT Mumbai held in the case of Asst. DIT Vs M/s Hongkong and Shanghani Banking Corporation Ltd that the broken period interest...
Income Tax : ITAT held in Acclaris Business Solutions Lvt Ltd. Vs I.T.O that only those companies could be compared for calculating ALP which w...
Appeal of the revenue stands allowed and only the cost of theland has to be considered for calculating exemption u/s 54B no other expenses will be taken into account. So ITAT disallowed the expenses of leveling and filing of land and set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore that of A.O on this issue.
Respective court was of the view that section 68 has no application because the same had already been taken in income of the assessee so it no where remains undisclosed. Moreover the assessee has duly discharged its onus to prove the credit worthiness of the donor by giving the list of the same
High Court Calcutta held in CIT Vs Balampur Chini Mills Pvt Ltd that even if the assesse had voluntary disclosed its income by filing revised ROI though not detected by the revenue during scrutiny proceedings u/s 143(3), penalty u/s 272(1)(c) would be levied.
ITAT held in ITO Vs General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd that the incentive offered by the BSNL to its franchisee was in the nature of trade discount not in the nature of commission because after the payment made by the franchisee to the BSNL all risks and rewards relate to the franchisee.
ITAT held in Manikanta Concerns Vs DCIT that if the assesse had claimed deduction of shortage in weight or quality at the time of purchase then it did not mean that assesse could not claim deduction of shortage in weight or quality at the time of sale.
ITAT Hyderabad held in Shri M.S Lakshmana Rao Vs DCIT that if the assesse had not deposited the capital gain amount under the capital gain account scheme in bank then the assesse should not be barred of the exemption of sec 54
Punjab & Haryana High Court held in CIT Vs DSM Anti Infectives India ltd that the benchmark comparable which was used to compare with the comparable company that should be considered only of that year of which TP case was involved.
Calcutta High Court Held in the case of M/s Budge Budge Company Ltd Vs CIT if the business had been suspended for some period of time without any malice contention of the assesse and the plant was still ready for use during that suspended period also
ITAT held in CIT( Kolkatta) Vs Merlin Holding Private Limited that it was the question of the fact to decide between the share income as an investment income or as a business income. Mere Frequency of the transactions in the shares did not determine the transaction to be business transaction or investment transaction.
High Court Kolkatta held in CIT,TDS Vs Khadim Shoes Pvt Ltd that the order passed by the CIT(A) should contain reasons for its conclusions of decisions. An order without reasons is of no relevance. So the appeal had been dismissed.
