-
When the approval given by the JCIT, Meerut is juxtaposed against the directions and provisions of the Income Tax Act pertaining to completion to assessment u/s 153B(1) of the Act, it can be said that the approval given by the JCIT is invalid.
RISHABH BUILDWELL P. LTD., R.G.V. FININVEST P. LTD., SHRISTHI COMPUTERS P. LTD. AND AGGARWAL CAPFIN FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19605 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76228&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
A perusal of the bank statement shows that only a part of the deposits and withdrawals have been shown in the regular accounts and the assessee has not disclosed the entire deposits and withdrawals. ITAT find neither the assessee has constructed the house property during the year as claimed nor deposited the long term capital gain of above amount in the specified capital gain accounts scheme.
VIPUL KUMAR JAIN VERSUS ACIT CIRCLE 34 (1) NEW DELHI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19596 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76194&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
When there is no exempt income earned by the assessee during the relevant assessment year, no disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions contained u/s 14A. So, finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the CIT (A), present appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
DCIT, CIRCLE 20 (1), NEW DELHI. VERSUS M/S. PUNJ LLOYD AVIATION PRIVATE LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19586 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76187&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We find merit in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assesee that the AO could not enquire into the selection of the donee or the purpose of the donation unless the genuineness is doubted.
INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD – 1 (1), NEW DELHI VERSUS ESCORTS CARDIAC DISEASES HOSPITAL SOCIETY, C/O. ESCORTS HEARD INTT. & RESEARCH CENTRE, OKHLA ROAD, NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19575 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76153&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Illegal gratification addition made merely based on Shunglu Committee's Commonwealth Games probe is deleted.
GL Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19570 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - TP Adjustment - adjustment regarding outstanding receivables - company has a margin of 23.3% on Software Development segment as compared to 11.42% of the comparable companies, which shows that the working capital adjusted margin of the assessee have already factored into account the delay in the receivables - therefore no separate adjustment is required to be made
M/S. BARCO ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS (P.) LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4 (1), NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19568 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76132&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Income offered by the assessee through its joint declaration was neither represented by any assets found in the course of search nor represented by any entry made in the books of accounts or other documents or transactions found in the course of search and income voluntarily offered by the assessee did not come within the ambit and scope of the expression ‘undisclosed income’ as defined for the purposes of Section 271AAB.
CINESTAAN ENTERTAINMENT P. LTD. VERSUS ITO, WARD-6 (2), NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19553 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76086&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 56(2)(viib): The assessee has the option under Rule 11UA(2) to determine the FMV by either the ‘DCF Method’ or the 'NAV Method'. The AO has no jurisdiction to tinker with the valuation and to substitute his own value or to reject the valuation. He also cannot question the commercial wisdom of the assessee and its investors. The ‘DCF Method’ is based on projections. The AO cannot fault the valuation on the basis that the real figures don't support the projections. Also, the fact that independent investors have invested in the start-up proves that the FMV as determined by the assessee is proper
Cinestaan Entertainment P. Ltd vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19537 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
S. 68 Bogus Capital Gains from Penny Stocks: The allegation that the Co is a penny stock co whose share price has been artificially rigged by promoters/brokers/operators to create non-genuine LTCG is not sufficient. The AO has failed to bring on record any evidence to prove that the transactions carried out by the assessee were not genuine or that the documents were not authentic. No specific enquiry or investigation was conducted in the case of the assessee and/or his broker either by the INV Wing or by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The penny stock was also not subject to any action from SEBI (Udit Kalra 176 DTR 249 (Del) distinguished, Fair Invest Ltd 357 ITR 146 (Del) followed)
Deepak Nagar vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19500 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 68
-
S. 56(2)(vii)(c): The assessee's purchase of shares of NDTV Ltd at Rs 4 per share from RRPR Holdings Pvt Ltd when the market price of the share was Rs 140 is a benefit taxable u/s 56 (2)( vii). The argument that as it is a transaction between closely related parties, there is no motive of tax evasion & s. 56 (2) does not apply is not acceptable. The assessee has failed to explain by credible evidence any reason of buying shares of the company at Rs. 4 per share when the quoted price was Rs. 140 & so the assessee cannot say that there was no motive of tax evasion. Even otherwise, s. 56 (2) deems such differences/receipts as income
Radhika Roy / Prannoy Roy vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19498 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)
-
If one of the prescribed methods has been adopted by the assessee, then AO has to accept the same and in case he is not satisfied, then there is no express provision under the Act or rules, where AO can adopt his own valuation in DCF method or get it valued by some different Valuer.
Cinestaan Entertainment P. Ltd Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19484 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - SEZ deduction claim u/s. 80IAB allowed however interest u/s. 14A disallowed.
DLF Limited Vs The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19476 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 80IAB
-
ITAT - Upholds LTCG-addition on the ground that the assessee entered into complex agreements with the lenders to realize the sale consideration in guise of loans from lenders.
Radhika Roy Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19470 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)(vii)(c)
-
For availing exemption u/s 54 on purchase of land-plot for house construction, there is no time limit.
Shri Varun Seth Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19462 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 54
-
Since there was a violation of natural justice principles, therefore CIT's Sec. 263 order was quashed.
National Association of Software and Services Companies (‘NASSCOM’) Vs CIT (Exemptions)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19455 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 263
-
AO to allocate expenses to incomes on which STT rebate u/s 88E is denied and re-compute the rebate accordingly.
M/s OPG Securities Private Ltd. Vs The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19453 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 88E
-
Deduction u/s.37(1) for gratuity payments made by assessee (a JV company between entities of Bharti Group and Vodafone Idea Limited) during AY 2009-10 is allowed.
Indus Towers Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19420 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 37
-
ITAT - Director-shareholder was professionally highly qualified and the bonus was duly offered to tax hence deduction for bonus paid over 100% of Salary to director-shareholder allowed.
Bmr Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19364 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
Contributions by one society to another having similar objects have to be considered a legitimate application of income by a charitable society.
ICFAI University Vs Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19346 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - The final assessment order has been passed after the end of one month from the date of receipt of the directions of the DRP by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, order passed by the Assessing Officer is void ab initio and liable to be quashed as the final assessment order is time barred.
M/S. DENTSPLY INDIA (P) LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-10 (1) NEW DELHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19334 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75431&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.