In the case of M/s Blessing Construction vs. ITO The Ahmedabad Tribunal has held Merely because the Assessing Officer or the ITAT did not consider the evidences to be sufficient for the purpose of explaining the cash credit u/s 68, it will not automatically lead to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
Brief of the case- ITAT Ahmedabad held in the case of Arvind Murjani Brands Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT that As the amount on which tax was deducted at source is not at all chargeable to tax, then the command of section 199 will have to be harmoniously and pragmatically read as providing
In the case of Smt. C. Vijay Kumari vs.ITO the Hyderabad ITAT has held that addition made by AO to the total income of the assessee on account of profit arising from sale of agricultural land treating the same as business income instead of capital gains claimed by the assessee as exempt
In case of JCIT vs. Riddhi Siddhi Gluco Biols Ltd. The Ahmedabad tribunal has held that Interest free funds available with assessee was much more than the interest free loan given by the assessee. A.O made proportionate disallowance merely on the presumption that the proportionate borrowed money must have been utilized for investment in capital work-in-progress. Relying on decision
In case of ITO VS. M/s.Testree Solutions Pvt. Ltd, ITAT Bangalore held that the export proceeds received after the expiry of the period of six months from the end of the relevant previous year was to be allowed as a deduction u/s 10A .
In the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Vaghasia Associates, ITAT Ahmedabad held that merely because some estimated labour payment was written on the projected profit & loss account, the addition for unexplained expenditure cannot be made.
In case of ACIT vs. M/s. Prasad Machinery Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) assessee was owner of factory building. It allotted certain space therein to its sister concern for enabling it to carry on their business in lieu of charging rent.
In case of M/s. AT & T Global Business Services India Pvt.Ltd. VS. ITO , assessee-company, engaged in business of software development and providing application services to its AE. TPO on basis of mean margin earned by his own set of comparables
In the case of Shri Kaushik B. Patel Vs. D.C.I.T it was held by ITAT Ahmedabad that routine business transactions/salary payments do not fall under the purview of Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. In this case the assessee’s books nowhere treat the sums received as loan and advances to have been received from the said Company.
ITAT Mumbai held in J. Gala Vs DCIT that for levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) revenue has to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, without which penalty could not be levied. Further for giving reasonable opportunity of being heard
