ITAT Chennai held that payment towards purchase of wet grinders and accessories were mainly made to a cottage industry and accordingly such payment is not hit by the provisions of section 40A(3) as payment made to a cottage industry is excluded under rule 6DD(F) of the Income Tax Rules.
Bombay High Court held that once the application for SEZ LOP is accepted and LOP is issued, the Unit attains the SEZ Status and therefore entitled to all the exemptions provided under section 26 of the SEZ Act which also includes exemption from payment of duties of customs.
ITAT Bangalore held that if for reasons given by CIT(A) working capital adjustment cannot be allowed to the profit margins, then the comparable uncontrolled transactions chosen for the purpose of comparison will have to be treated as not comparable in terms of Rule 10B(3) of the Rules. Matter remanded to re-compute the working capital adjustment.
ITAT Chandigarh held that suspicions entertained by the Revenue cannot be the basis of unsettling the valid order and hence revisionary order proceeded entirely on presumptions, conjectures and surmises is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Bangalore held that expenditure of ESOP cross-charge is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, said amount remitted by the assessee to ultimate holding company, and hence allowable expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Kerala High Court held that as per provisions of section 119(2)(b) the delay to be condoned is the delay in making the application for refund. Accordingly, date of filing of return of income should be considered as application for refund. Section 119(2)(b) does not impose any limitation for the purposes of filing an application for condonation of delay.
ITAT Delhi held that addition based on DVO report regarding construction of cost of property unsustainable as DVO applied CPWD rates, however, it is settled law that State PWD rate is better guiding factor for arriving at cost of construction of the property.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition towards unexplained investment sustained as assessee couldnt explain the source of investment. Onus is on the assessee to explain the source of investment.
ITAT Mumbai held that deduction u/s 36(1)(via) is to be allowed on the total outstanding advances at the end of each month considering the opening balances.
Calcutta High Court held that rejection of an application for revocation of registration without considering the vital facts is a non-speaking order liable to be set aside.
