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...
ITAT held in Dy CIT Vs Ms Nevil Gems that if the assessee had maintained quantitative details of diamonds but had not qualitative and piece-wise details then in that case books of account could not be rejected
ITAT held in ITO Vs Ramesh Kumar Jajodia that if the assessee had filed its original return u/s 139(1) but forgot to claim the speculative loss in its original return and filed revised return u/s 139(5) and claimed the loss in its revised return then the speculative loss should be allowed to be carried forward.
ITAT Mumbai held in Reliance gems & Jewels ltd Vs DCIT that the revenue expenditure would be allowed as an expense after the setting up of the business before the commencement of the business. The expense incurred on recruitment of employees gave indication that the business had been set up
ITAT Mumbai held in M/s Hiranandani Builders Vs ITO that the followings receipts were also eligible for deduction u/s 80IA considering the same to be profits from undertakings: 1.Interest on IT refund 2.Other Interest 3. FDR Interest 4. Tender fees
ITAT Chennai held in The ACIT Vs M/s Mansi Finance Chennai Ltd that if the agricultural land purchased by the assessee was not with an adventure in the nature of trade then that agricultural land could not be treated as a capital asset and liable for capital gain.
ITAT held in Pooja Industries Vs ITO that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not be levied only because that the assessee had wrongly claimed deduction u/s 80IC @ 100% instead of deduction u/s 80IB. Penalty could only be levied only
ITAT held in Sumitomo Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT that if the case of assessee was decided in the earlier assessment years and if the facts and circumstances were same as in the previous years ,then in the current year also same basis for assessment should be adopted.
ITAT Mumbai held in ITO Vs Legal Heir of Shri Durgaprasad Agnihotri that to respect the decision given by jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court in CIT vs. Ace Builders (P.) Ltd. [2006] 281 ITR 210 (Bom) it was upholding the decision given by CIT(A) that the exemption u/s 54EC
ITAT held in ITO Vs M/s.Last Peak Data Pvt. Ltd that if the assesse was an existing recognized Software Technology Park (STP) then it would be considered at par at of Special Economic Zone(SEZ) and exemptions available to SEZ would also be available to STP
ACIT vs Advert Communication ( ITAT Delhi) 1.If addition has to be made for bogus purchases then sales should also be disturbed ; 2.Until and unless both parties don’t confirm the cessation of liability then addition cannot be made u/s 41(1); 3.
