Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 156 (2.15 seconds)
Documents citing Ravinder Kumar Ahuja Huf, New Delhi vs Acit, New Delhi on 28 February, 2022

Rakshit Estates Private ... vs Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon on 29 October, 2025

14. We shall now deal with the objection raised by the Ld. DR that as the assessee had not called in question the jurisdiction of the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bhilai within the stipulated time period of one month from the date on which he was served with the notice(s) u/ss.143(2) and 142(1), dated 03.03.2015, therefore, it was not permissible for him to challenge the same for the first time in the course of the proceeding before the tribunal. Having given a 13 ITA No. 3615/Del/2024 Rakshit Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid claim of the ld. DR we are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the same. On a careful perusal of Section 124 of the Act, it transpires that the same deals with the issue of "territorial jurisdiction" of an Assessing Officer. Ostensibly, sub-section (1) of Section 124 contemplates vesting with the A.O jurisdiction over a specified area by virtue of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 120 of the Act. On the other hand sub-section (2) of Section 124 contemplates the manner in which any controversy as regards the territorial jurisdiction of an A.O is to be resolved. Apropos, subsection (3) of Section 124 of the Act, the same places an embargo upon an assessee to call in question the jurisdiction of the A.O where he had initially not raised such objection within a period of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of Section 142 or sub-section (2) of Section 143. In sum and substance, the obligation cast upon an assessee to call in question the jurisdiction of the A.O as per the mandate of sub-section (3) of Section 124 is confined to a case where the assessee objects to the assumption of territorial jurisdiction by the A.O, and not otherwise.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dilip Construction Company, Balod, ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... on 1 June, 2023

(i) the expenditure is in the nature of a capital 14 Dilip Construction Company Vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai ITA No.78/RPR/2023 expenditure or personal expenditure of the assessee; or (ii) that the expenditure had been incurred for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law. As the A.O had failed to place on record any material which would prove to the hilt that the assessee had either raised a bogus claim of expenditure; or that the said expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business; or that the expenditure so claimed as a deduction did not fall within the four parameters of Section 37 of the Act, therefore, I am unable to persuade myself to subscribe to the disallowance to the said effect so made by the A.O. I, thus, in terms of my aforesaid observations vacate the disallowance of Rs.2,50,000/- made by the A.O. The Ground of appeal No.3 is allowed in terms my aforesaid observations.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Arm Overseas Pvt Ltd, Delhi on 28 February, 2025

Under these circumstances, by respectfully following the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Bombay High Court, 10 ITA No.4545/Del/2024 C.O. No.17/Del/2025 ARM Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT we are of the considered opinion that the reopening in the instant case is not by proper application of mind and the reasons recorded by the AO are vague and not supported by independent verification done from the material already available on record. Further assessee has been able to rebut the allegation made in the reasons recorded of receiving the accommodation entry of Rs.21,79,860/- which remained uncontroverted. Thus the reassessment proceedings as initiated vide notice issued u/s 148 dt.31.3.2019 are hereby quashed. The ground of cross objection No. 1 & 2 of the assessee are allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Avm Construction Co, Mansa vs Dcit, Circle 1, Bathinda on 20 September, 2024

In view of the principles of natural justice, we consider it deem fit to restore back the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter de novo after considering the written submission and evidences filed as claimed to be collected from the AO's record and may be filed before him 7 ITA No. 380/Asr/2023 AVM Construction Co. v. DCIT during the fresh Appellate Proceedings after granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee with a direction that the CIT(A) shall issue a Show Cause Notice and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. No doubt, the appellant shall co-operate in the de-novo appeal proceedings before the ld. CIT(A).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Willow Estates Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs Ito Ward-27(3), New Delhi on 21 March, 2023

(B.2.1) In view of the foregoing, and as representatives of both sides are in agreement with this, in the specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, we set aside the issue regarding amounts of Rs.18,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively received from Mr. Bahl Singh and Mr. Maan Singh; and restore the same to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass fresh order in accordance with law on these specific issues, after providing reasonable opportunities to the assessee. The Assessing Officer will be at liberty to require the Page 6 of 10 ITA No.2325/Del/2019 M/s Willow Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO assessee to produce the aforesaid Mr. Bahl Singh and Mr. Maan Singh before the Assessing Officer.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Globe Transport Company Pvt.Ltd., ... vs Assessee

has remained unverifiable. However, keeping the totality of the circumstances in view like GP rate shown by assessee being more than in earlier year and the fact that no such disallowance was made in earlier years on this account we are inclined take a lenient view in the matter ITA No.3277/Ahd/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 Globe Tansport Co.P. Ltd. v. ACIT Cirl-4 A'bd Page 6 and feel that this disallowance be restricted to 10% of the total expenses claimed by the assessee under the head "operational expenses". We hold accordingly.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Geeta, Gurgaon vs Ito Ward - 1(5), Gurgaon on 20 September, 2023

The assessee except making the above assertions that the land sold by the assessee was in a better position, not produced any evidence Page 7 of 9 ITA No.4925/Del/2019 Geeta vs. ITO before the Lower Authorities to prove that the Assessee's land that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had decided the fair market and no specific difference has been pointed out by the assessee. Therefore, in our opinion, in the absence of any material to prove that the land of the assessee and the land for which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the fair market value at Rs. 50,000/- per Bigha are different and in the absence of any supporting evidence in support of the contention of the assessee, we find no error or infirmity in the orders of the Lower Authorities in adopting fair market value on the basis of the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Accordingly, we find no merit in the Grounds of Appeal of the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - G S Pannu - Full Document

Hylink Overseas Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs Dcit Circle-11(2), New Delhi on 12 April, 2023

6. We find that the assessee has shown in its books that it had borrowed unsecured loan from Mr. Vijaya Kumar Gulati who had sourced the said loan out of borrowings from IIFL. From the perusal of the orders of the lower authorities, we find that there is no clear factual finding in this regard. It is a fact that loan sanction letter together with the repayment schedule from IIFL was placed on record before the Ld. AO. Due to continuous absence of the assessee before us, we are unable to get the suitable assistance in this regard to ascertain the factual situation. However, the fact of borrowings made from IIFL and the fact of loan sanction letter being placed on record before the Ld. AO is not disputed by the Revenue before us, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to appropriate, in the interest of justice and fair play, to restore this issue to the file of the Ld. AO for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee is at liberty to furnish fresh evidences, if any, in support of its contentions. Needless to mention that the assessee be given reasonable Page 5 of 6 ITA No.2819/Del/2019 Hylink Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next