ITAT Amritsar held that loss incurred as amount written off paid against advance of land reflected in column bad & doubtful in ITR is allowable as business loss as genuinity of transaction not questioned.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s 45 under the head Capital Gains for violation of conditions u/s. 47(xiiib) of the Act on conversion of a private limited company into the assessee LLP unsustainable as commercial expediency not contravened by AO.
ITAT Mumbai held that appeal of the revenue is hit by the monetary limits as per CBDT circular. Further, filing of appeal based on information from investigation wing (i.e. not external source) is not covered by except mentioned in clause (e) of paragraph 10 of CBDT circular.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that activity of leasing workwear (uniform) to their clients on the conditions mentioned in the agreements with their clients is not taxable under supply of tangible goods.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that profit earned for carbon credits is capital in nature and hence addition treating the same as revenue in nature is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Hyderabad held that benefit of deduction under section 54F not eligible as the assessee owns more than one residential property on the date of transfer of the capital asset other than the new asset acquired.
ITAT Mumbai held that payments made under Sales or Return agreements not covered under section 194C of the Income Tax Act. Hence, TDS not deductible.
Delhi High Court held that merely because an officer of customs contemplates that a question may arise for consideration, does not mean that the question is pending consideration. Accordingly, the same cannot bar Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR) from deciding the issue in an application for advance ruling.
ITAT Delhi held that a reasonable amount of expenditure towards distribution of gifts amongst the dealers is allowable expenditure.
Bombay High Court held that there is no transfer of property in goods when furniture manufactured is transferred from one unit to other. Hence, there would be no violation of condition (i) or (vii) of the Notification No. 30/97-CUS dated 1 April 1997 as there is no transfer in violation of the actual user condition.
