DRP's Power of Enhancement

The assessee, a foreign company, declared a loss of Rs. 31.22 crores in its first year of operations after claiming deduction for “Provision for future losses” of Rs. 32.86 crores. The AO passed a draft assessment order u/s 144C in which he disallowed the claim for future losses. The DRP confirmed the disallowance of future losses and also directed the AO to take 20% of the contract as having been completed during the period and to assess 8% thereof as the profit. The assessee filed an appeal claiming that the DRP had no jurisdiction to go beyond the draft assessment order and that the future losses were allowable. Hon’ble ITAT had allowed the appeal of the assessee by stating that DRP's Power of enhancement is confined to issues raised in Draft Assessment Order only.  

Dredging International vs. ADIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for Short Deduction of TDS

Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) cannot be made for short deduction of TDS.
DCIT vs. S.K. Tekriwal (ITAT Kolkata)

Coaching activity by ICAI is not Business

Coaching Activity by ICAI is not falling under the category of business and hence exexmption u/s 10(23c) can not be denied. 


DIT vs. ICAI ( Delhi High Court)

Submission of ITR acknowledgement at Bangalore : Bombay HC clarifies law

Where assessee filed return electronically and had also submitted ITR-V form by ordinary post, department could not treat return as invalid on ground that ITR-V form had not been received by CPC, Bangalore


Crawford Bayley & Co. (Bombay HC), 1st Dec 2011.

Exemption u/s 54F vis a vis Property purchased jointly with Wife

Exemption under section 54F can not be restricted to 50 per cent merely because property was purchased jointly in names of assessee and his wife.
Delhi ITAT 

No 14A Disallowance for Chapter VI-A deductions

Terms 'exempt income' and 'deduction from income' are two different propositions and, therefore, where assessee's income was not exempt under section 10 rather same was eligible for deduction under section 80P, assessee's case was not hit by provisions of section 14A.
ACIT vs. Kribhco ( Delhi ITAT)