Kushal K. Bangia vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – In principle, though the scope of ‘income’ in s. 2(24) is very wide, a capital receipt is not chargeable to tax as income unless there is a specific provision to that effect. As the residential flat owned by the assessee in the society’s building was a capital asset in his hands, the compensation was a capital receipt. The department’s argument that the cash compensation was a ‘share in profits earned by the developer’ is not acceptable because it proceeds on the fallacy that the nature of payment in the hands of the payer determines the nature in the hands of the recipient. However, as the said receipt reduced the cost of acquisition of the new flat, it had to be taken into when computing the gains from a transfer thereof in the future

Kodiak Networks (India) Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) – As far as the data to be used by the TPO while determining the ALP was concerned, it is observed that it is covered by the provisions of rule 10D sub-rule 4 of the Income-tax Rules. Section 92 C provides that the arm’s length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the methods being the most appropriate method having regard to the nature of transaction or class of transaction or class of associated persons or functions performed by such persons or such other relevant factors for computing the ALP and also any other method as may be prescribed by the Board. S. 92D provides that (i) every person who has entered into an international transaction shall maintain and keep such information and documents in respect thereof;

DCIT Vs. R. R.Builders (ITAT Mumbai) – There is no dispute that the partners of the assessee firm are also partners of the firm M/s Adarsh Octroi Services, Mumbai. We further find that the amount of Rs.5,25,000/- each was withdrawn by Shri Rafique Shakur Shekhani and Shri Sayed Rasul Shaikh partners of the firm on 15.4.2005 from their partnership firm M/s M/s Adarsh Octroi Services, Mumbai as per copy of cash book filed and the same amount was deposited by both the partners with the assessee firm on the same date.

ACIT Vs. Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) – Hon’ble Delhi High Court in A.R.J. Security Printers’ case [2003] 264 ITR 276 and CIT v. Neo Poly Pack P. Ltd. [2000] 245 ITR 492 (Delhi ), held that even when the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings, where an issue has been decided consistently in a particular manner for earlier assessment years, the same view should prevail even during the subsequent years unless there is a material change in the facts.

Rujuta N.Shah V/s ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee submits that no proper and due opportunity was not provided to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A) inasmuch as, the ld. CIT(A) has also not considered the paper book filed by the assessee, while deciding the appeal ex-parte, therefore, in the interest of justice the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) be set aside to his file to decide the same afresh which was not objected to by the ld. DR.

Shri Dev Ashok Karvat Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- In Mr.Chetan R.Parikh V/s ITO in ITA No.1569/Mum/2010 (AY:2006-07) dated 25.5.2011, it has been held by the Tribunal that the units of mutual funds are not generally a trading instrument because of comparatively low fluctuation and number of transactions in units are also not large.

Classic Shares & Stock Broking Services Limited Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – This appeal was fixed for hearing on 16.01.2012. However, despite notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor has it moved any application for adjournment. It is, therefore, presumed that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. Accordingly, by applying the ratio laid down by the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. [(1991) 38 ITD 320], we dismiss this appeal filed by the Appellant-assessee as not maintainable.

ACIT vs Ashima Dyecot Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) – After the amendment of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from April 1, 1989, in order to obtain a deduction in relation to bad debts, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable: it is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee.

ACIT  Vs. M/s Kiran Pal Singh (ITAT Delhi)-   In this case also before the Assessing Officer, the assessee had stated that all the partners are assessed to income tax and they have also furnished the acknowledgement of the returns filed by all the partners. Therefore, if the Assessing Officer had any doubt about the [...]

DCIT Vs.  Shri Jayesh Chandulal Patel (ITAT Ahmedabad)-  Parties appearing before us have fairly expressed that since the issue pertaining to the quantum addition had already been restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with certain directions for de novo adjudication, therefore consequence thereupon these penalty proceeding deserves to be restored back to [...]