ITAT Kolkata held that AO failed to examine the agreement as composite agreement and hence non-examination of AO with that angle has caused prejudice to the interest of Revenue and hence CIT rightly set aside the assessment order by exercising powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that addition based on incriminating material found during the search carried out of ‘some other person’ i.e. third person/ party and assessing the same by invoking provision of section 147 instead of section 153C is unsustainable.
ITAT Mumbai remanded the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer as incriminating document found against the Assessee during search operation of third party is not provided to the Assessee.
CESTAT Delhi held that service tax is not chargeable on the services provided in respect of tour undertaken for carrying out Hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia by Indian pilgrims considering these as export of service.
ITAT Chennai held that in absence of incriminating material as a result of search, no addition can be made in the assessment framed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Act, if such assessments are unabated on the date of search.
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessment order passed in the name of non-existing entity will not survive. Accordingly, the assessment order is liable to be quashed and set aside.
ITAT Delhi held that addition on account of trading loss on sale of tools and dies unsustainable as the loss was incurred for sustainable and longer partnership and the same has given rise to generation of profits in subsequent years.
ITAT Lucknow held that amount of disallowance of expenditure, on presumption of leakage in the form of expenditure of personal nature, reduced as found that total amount of disallowance by lower authority was excessive and unreasonably high.
ITAT Delhi held that addition towards unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as nature and source of credit duly explained by the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition of unexplained investment u/s 68 sustained as genuineness of transaction in shares not proved. Further, SEBI also found manipulative trade executed in entities to whom shares were sold by the assessee.
