Tally for Practicing CAs Gold Edition (Multi User) Tally for CAs in Industry Silver Edition (Single User) Tally Renewal (Auditor Edition) Need Tally for Clients? (Tie-up with us!!!)
From the Courts »
 Gail (India) Ltd., 16, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi Vs DCIT-LTU Delhi Large Tax Payer Unit, NBCC Plaza Pushp Vihar, Sector
 Nokia India Pvt. Ltd, TEC, Level 18, DLF Cyber City, PhaseIII, Building No. 5, Tower A, Gurgaon Vs CIT, New Delhi
 CIT(A) ought to analyse nature of service undertaken by assessee and Taxation of fees for Technical Services: ITAT
 Smt. Asha Dhingra, H.No.2004, Sector-9, Faridabad vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) Faridabad
 M/s Tyagi and Co 8 Virk Nagar Near St Marys School Assandh Panipat Haryana Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 3 Panipat Haryana
 Shri Samundar Vijay Jain, C-18, Preet Vihar, New Delhi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-59(1), New Delhi.
 Ms Rajni Jain, E-109, Narwana Apartments, I.P. Extension, Patparganj, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 55(1), Faridabad.
 Varun Gupta, C52, Shakti Nagar Extension, Delhi Vs ITO, Ward47(4), Room No. 406, 4th Floor, BlockD, Pratyakash Kar Bhawan, Civic Centre, JL Nehru Marg, New Delhi
 ACIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi Vs. Anurag Dalmia, 2 nd Floor, Indraprakash Building, 21 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi
 ACIT, Central Circle 16 New Delhi Vs. Smt. Vinita Chaurasia, 575, Double Storey Flats New Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi 110 060.
 M/s. Gangeshwari Metals Pvt. Ltd Shop No.4, 169, Shivkhand Vishwakarma Nagar, Jhilmil Delhi Vs. ITO, Ward 11 (3), New Delhi

M/s PAD COM LLP C/o. R.B.Arora & Co., DSM- 127, DLF Towers, ShivajiMarg, Moti Nagar, New Delhi Vs. ACIT Circle-36(1) New Delhi
August, 20th 2020

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-25, New Delhi dated 20.09.2017 pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15.

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 2.55 lacs.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Limited Liability Partnership whose return was selected for scrutiny
assessment under CASS and accordingly statutory notices was issued and served upon the assessee.

4. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings the AO noticed that the assessee has received Rs. 1.17 crores as rent
and has also shown income from fixed deposit Rs. 2,22,579/-. The AO further observed that the assessee has claimed a business loss
of Rs. 2,55,125/-. The AO was of the opinion that since the assessee is not having any business there should not be any claim of business expenditure.

For more information

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2020 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting