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 Kolkatta held in Swew Benefit Company Vs DCIT that for disallowing expenses u/s 14A i.e expense incurred for non-taxable income, there had to be some logical strong basis like rule 8D or something else but it could not be disallowed on ad-hoc basis.
ITAT Ahmedabad held in ACIT Vs Amrapali Capital & Financial services Ltd that if the assessee had by mistake wrongly computed its computation of income because of unawareness of the law and he had not revised it return within the time mentioned u/s 139(5)
Supreme Court held in Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society Vs Balwan Singh that the lawyers owe fiduciary duties to their clients, so they should act with the express consent of clients. Lawyers should not make any commitment without the consent of their clients and any commitment
ITAT New Delhi held in Simran Singh Gambhir Vs DDIT International Taxation that if the assessee had disclosed the income by mistake under wrong head of income and that mistake was bonafide then the same could not be treated as an undisclosed income and penalty u/s 271(1)( C) could not be levied.
New Delhi court held in PR. CIT Vs Control and Switch gear Contractors Ltd that if the assessee had disclosed the income in its return of income though wrongly disclosed it did not mean that the assessee had tried to hide its income so that wrongly disclosed income could not be considered as an undisclosed income and penalty u/s 271(1)( C) could not be levied.
The High Court of New Delhi has held in case of CIT-1 Vs Ansal Landmark Township P Ltd that second proviso to sec 40(a)(ia) will have retrospective effect from 01-04-2005 which means that if the assessee had forgot to deduct the TDS on payment
ITAT Delhi held in Ambience Hotel & Resort Pvt. Vs CIT that if the AO had done his assessment ignoring the provisions of the IT act and TPA and ignoring the examinations/inquiry then that assessment was erroneous
ITAT held in Almora Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd Vs ITO that TDS was not required to be deducted when co-operative society pays interest to its members as per sec 194A(3).
Delhi High Court held in CIT Vs DLF Universal Ltd held that If assessee got hundi from its suppliers and get it discounted from the bank ,then the discounting charges paid by the assessee would be treated as a revenue expense;
ITAT held in Envogue Wood Working Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT that if the assessee had taken and repaid the loan in cash and provided the sufficient reasonable cause of doing such then penalty u/s 271D & 271E would not be imposed.
