-
Penalty not leviable u/s 271(1)(c) owing its corresponding deletion of addition in the quantum appeal.
Bhushan Lal Sawhney Vs The DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28277 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Once the Assessing Officer has taken a view based on the explanation as well as evidence filed by the assessee, it cannot be the case of lack of enquiry. At the best, it is inadequate enquiry and, therefore, in such a situation the assessment order cannot be cancelled or set aside.
SHRI VARUN KHANDELWAL VERSUS PR. CIT, DELHI : 24, NEW DELHI.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28263 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95287&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Principles of natural justice demands that the assessee should be given an opportunity to rebut the statement of third party which is the basis for addition and an opportunity to cross-examine the same person, if demanded.
M/S. PRIYA DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 25, JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28262 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95288&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Directions of the PCIT beyond the scope of scrutiny not legally valid.
Manoj Singhal Vs Pr. CIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28251 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 263
-
Nothing has been proved to come to a conclusion that the income falls within the ambit of Section 68. Therefore action of the ld. CIT(A) cannot be sustained.
INTELLECTUAL SECURITIES LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE NOIDA
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28230 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95176&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The casual use of the words like routine, arbitrary and whimsical having adverse legal consequences for the functioning of the adjudicating Authority like the First Appellate Authority is strongly deprecated.
Abdul Wahab Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28220 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Property being used for commercial purpose was factually reported by the inspector and there was no reason for the lower authorities to brush aside the inspector’s report.
Yash Suneja Vs The ACIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28219 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 54F
-
There was substance in the Assessee’s claim of having received part/full sale consideration qua sale of the properties in question and the same had wrongly been rejected by the lower authorities.
Fakruddin Ali Ahmed Vs ITO
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28218 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 68
-
Assessee-HUF in the present case complied with the conditions of Section 54 of the Act in its true letter and spirit and, therefore was entitled to the deduction under Section 54 of the Act.
SAROJ ARORA VERSUS ITO WARD- 59 (3) NEW DELHI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28208 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95131&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the Revenue's action. Therefore, AO is directed to delete the addition.
Amal Allana Vs Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28172 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 23
-
CAM charges were in the nature of contractual payment made to a person for carrying out the work in lieu of a contract and thus, the same would clearly fall within the meaning of work as defined u/s 194C.
Connaught Plaza Restaurants P. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28170 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 194C, 194-I
-
Revenue is directed to delete the disallowance of ESOP expenditure.
Aricent Technologies (Holdings)Limited Vs Addl. CIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28164 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 37(1)
-
Where an assessment has been only processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, the reopening notice must satisfy the test of having reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
INDERJEET KOHLI VERSUS DCIT CIRCLE – 38 (1) NEW DELHI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28157 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94976&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Where interest paid on overdraft account maintained with bank for purpose of business and all receipts are deposited in the overdraft account and all payments including taxes made from that account, the entire interest paid would be allowable deduction.
SHRI DHARAM BHUSHAN JAIN VERSUS THE ACIT, CIRCLE – 61 (1) NEW DELHI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28156 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94978&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The mere fact that payments have been received through cheque cannot give any credence so as to genuineness of the transactions.
Krishna Devi Vs Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28149 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
DRP’s directions to delete the TP addition is being upheld.
GBT India Pvt. Ltd Vs National E–Assessment Centre
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28130 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The Revenue will only enquire the issues which are recorded for selection of the Assessee’s case under limited scrutiny, and thus the PCIT cannot say that Revenue failed to enquire on any other issues.
Naveen Partap Tyagi Vs Pr. CIT
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28124 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Assessee did not have DAPE in India and no income or any disallowance of commission payment by the PE was liable to be attributable in India, even if a DAPE had existed in India.
Mitsui & Co Vs DCIT (International Taxation)
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28123 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the IT Rules 1962 cannot be interpreted so as to mean that the entire tax exempt income is to be disallowed.
DCIT CIRCLE – 1 (2) , NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S. ACQUIRE SERVICES PVT. LTD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28109 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94869&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessing Officer is directed to allow the claimed deduction under sec. 54F of the Act.
MR. YASH SUNEJA VERSUS THE ACIT, CIRCLE – 42 (1) , NEW DELHI.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28108 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94879&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.