ITAT Bangalore held that the deposit of gold jewellery by family members of a partner in the partnership firm would be treated as the stock in trade of the firm as agreement between the firm and the partners provides that the jewellery given by the partner can be used by the firm and sold by the firm.
ITAT Mumbai held that Honble jurisdictional High Court order in case of CIT v Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council has held that none of the conditions attached to the grant affected the voluntary nature of the contribution and accordingly they would be exempt under section 12 of the Act and it is settled law that decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court is binding upon subordinate Tribunal and courts.
ITAT Bangalore held that order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is invalid as the same does not have any Document Identification Number.
ITAT Mumbai held that depreciation cannot be disallowed as application of income under section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act when the assessee has not claimed purchase of asset as application of income in any of the previous years.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Oil contained in Bunker Tanks in Engine Room of Vessel imported for breaking up is classifiable under CTH 8908 along with such vessel.
ITAT Chennai held that if TDS is deducted by applying wrong provisions or at lower rates, the sum paid cannot be disallowed attracting provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that consultancy services not of technical nature cannot treated as Fees for Included Services as per sub-clause 4B of Article 12 of DTAA between India –USA and hence addition unsustainable
ITAT Mumbai held that as per the provisions of 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act if the date of agreement fixing the consideration and date of registration are not in same, the stamp duty value may be taken as on the date of agreement fixing the consideration, instead of that on the date of registration.
ITAT Jaipur held that additions on account of LIC Premia treated as unexplained investment deleted as merely based on rough notings without any substantive evidence.
ITAT Delhi held that in case of limited scrutiny, AO cannot exceed the jurisdiction beyond the one which he has carved out himself in the notice issued for limited scrutiny. Addition beyond his jurisdiction is unsustainable.
