ITAT Chennai held that as the value of goods are duly accepted by the Central Excise department without there being any modification then AO doesn’t have any jurisdiction to go beyond the same.
CESTAT Delhi held that mere possession of foreign marking on gold without any corroborative evidence doesn’t lead to the conclusion that it is smuggled gold.
ITAT Bangalore held that levy of penalty u/s 271D, for violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, is unwarranted as the loan was advanced by the Executive Directors to the company in cash to meet the urgent requirements of the company.
ITAT Chennai held that undisclosed income allegation unsustainable as during search no incriminating material was found in respect of on-money receipt and AO also failed to establish the receipt of the same.
ITAT Kolkata held that the transaction of purchase of old gold jewellery in exchange of sale of new jewellery is covered under rule 6DD (d) and hence exempted from the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. Further, there is no violation of provisions of section 40A(3) as there is no actual transaction of payment of cash.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that construction cost attributable to 5 offices out of total 11 offices should be worked out on weighted basis and not on average basis as the properties mainly of the ground floor and first floor were sold out. Such properties fetches higher value in terms of sale price and hence cost is also attributable on weighted basis.
ITAT Bangalore based on the judgement of Datacraft India Ltd. held that if the networking equipment is used as a part of the computer in its functions, then the same will be classified as computers for the purpose of depreciation.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that liquidated damages are incidental business income but cannot be said to be profit from core or incidental activity. As there are not directly received from the core activity, they doesnt form part of computation in tonnage tax.
ITAT Mumbai held that property sold in individual capacity cannot be claimed to be owned by the partnership firm simply by way of making entries in the books of accounts of the partnership firm. Accordingly, Capital gain on sale of property taxable in hands of individual.
ITAT Mumbai held that loss of clients incurred under Options Maxima Scheme claimed by the assessee (being an agent) in its return is not allowable.
