-
ROC fees paid are to be considered as preliminarily expenditure within the meaning of Section 35D and directs the Revenue to delete the disallowance.
Rockland Diagnostics Services Pvt. Ltd Vs Income Tax Officer
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26291 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Income attributable to PE in India being less than the remuneration paid to the dependent agent, it extinguishes the assessment and requires no further exercise for computation of income.
Ricardo UK Limited Vs DCIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26264 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
It was not a case where the assessee was acquiring for the first time something which it did not otherwise own or possess. It was, thus, a change in the method of earning profits from the hotel and not a transfer of any asset. We find merit in the argument of the ld. Counsel that the agreement was terminated on business considerations and as a matter of commercial expediency.
ELEL Hotels & Investment Ltd Vs ACIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26247 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The assessee had no reason to keep the cash at home when the dispute was settled in 2019.
Leela Devi Vs ITO
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26217 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 69A
-
Exemption u/s 54 can be availed if the full amount of capital gain is utilized within time limit u/s 139(4).
Harminder Kaur Vs ITO
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26209 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Forfeiture of the convertible warrant had resulted in extinguishment of the right of the assessee, thus constituted transfer u/s 2(47) and allowed the STCL claim.
Azalea Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26193 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Option money received by the assessee is capital receipt which requires an adjustment only at the time of transfer of the shares by Dabur to CUIH while working out resultant capital gain.
Dabur Invest Corp Vs The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26184 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The actual group cost is allocated to respective countries benefited to these services in proportion to the revenue in that country and are incurred outside India.
Expeditors International of Washington Inc Vs DCIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26176 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
It cannot be the case of the Revenue that only the specific portion on ICD was not considered by the assessing officer as assessment order contained other disallowances after considering assessee’s response.
Eicher Motors Ltd Vs THE CIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26140 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
The relevant factor is profit and gain should be derived from the eligible business irrespective of the head of the income.
DLF Assets Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26123 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
S. 153D: The approving authority (JCIT) has to give approval for "each" assessment year after applying independent mind to the material on record to see whether the cases are un-abated or abated assessments and their effect. However, the JCIT has granted common approval for all AYs. Further, he did not have the seized material nor the appraisal report or other material at the time of granting approval. Therefore, the approval granted is merely technical approval just to complete the formality and without application of mind. The approval has been granted without application of mind and is invalid, bad in Law and is liable to be quashed
Sanjay Duggal vs. ACIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26071 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 153D
-
As DHS Mumbai makes the payment after deducting TDS and the assessee only reimburses its share of expenses, tax was not required to be deducted again in respect of its reimbursement of share of expenses.
Deloitte Haskins & Sells Vs The ACIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26036 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 40(a)(ia)
-
GAV computed by the AO by ignoring the provisions contained u/s 23(1)(a) of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
DCIT Vs M/s. Religare Support Limited
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26011 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 23(1)
-
The answer lies in the provisions of section 56 (2) (vii) second proviso which states that clause (vii) was not apply to any some of money or any property received from (g) any trust or institution registered u/s.12 AA.
Maninder Singh Vs ACIT
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 24974 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)(vii)
-
Revenue, for AY 2013-14, incorrectly taxed the advance amount, forfeited by the assessee on an umaterialized property deal, under the head Income from Other Sources applying the provisions of Sec. 56(2)(ix).
Meera Goyal Vs Income Tax Officer
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 24944 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)(ix)
-
When the new and old address of the assessee are in the same locality, it cannot be believed that the assessee does not make such arrangement with the postal department. If the assessee does not make any such arrangement, the reason for the non-service of notice would be attributable to the assessee alone.
Amarjeet Kaur Bawa Vs ITO
(2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 24930 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Provisions of sec. 17(2)(iii) would not be applicable to grant of interest free loan by the company to its director.
Mr. J.S. Gujral Vs DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24903 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 17(2)(iii)
-
Since the original assessment order was quashed on the grounds of non-service of notice, the seized material which was the basis of the original assessment order, can be the basis for reopening assessment under Sec. 147 and 148.
Shri Vijay Kumar Aggarwal Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24896 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
As the assessee has gifted the share, there is no accrual of any revenue to the assesse there is not any inflow of cash, receivables or other consideration, there is no question of accrual of any consideration to the assesse.
Manjula Finance Ltd Vs ITO
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24867 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
In absence of there being some enabling provision allowing AO to change the method of valuation, the choice of method adopted by the assessee cannot be disturbed.
TSI Yatra Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24857 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)(viib)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.