The ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Mahabir Educational Welfare Society vs. DCIT held that for claiming exemption u/s 10)(23C)(iiiad) filling of return of income as per the law applicable for AY 2005-06 and 2006-07 was not mandatory as the gross receipts not exceeded Rs. 1 crore
The ITAT Bangalore in the case of M/s Sai Bhagwan Traders vs. ITO held that unaccounted purchases cannot be added to the total income as unexplained investments when there was no discreoency found in stock records.
The ITAT Amritsar bench in case of Sh. Dushiant Kumar vs. ITO held that it is not the responsibility of the assessee to prove the source of funds in the hands of lender so long as he produce the lender before the AO who confirm the fact of lending money to assessee.
The ITAT Hyderabad in the case of Shri G. Mahesh Babu vs. DCIT held that if any material gathered by AO proposed to be utilized in the course of assessment proceedings then it is the duty of AO to inform the assessee about the same and provide an opportunity to be heard.
The ITAT Bangalore in the case of Nanda Gokula vs. CIT held that denial of registration u/s 12AA by the CIT by considering only the ancillary objects is unfair, because it is the main objects of the trust which are required to be tested for their charitable nature.
The ITAT Bangalore in the case of Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Ltd. held that the excess expenditure incurred in earlier previous years can be set off against the income of trust for the current year as an application of income because Section 11(1)(a) does not contain any words of limitation
The ITAT Chennai held that payments made by the assessee in the nature of webhosting and marketing expenses to US based service provider could not be taxed as Fees for technology services because there were not transfer of technology involved in render of services such that the services could be continuously used by the Indian company without recourse to the service provider.
The ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Waves Food Private Limited vs. DCIT held that reopening of assessment to disallow provision for damaged goods returned is not valid as the issue had been specifically dealt by AO during the course of regular assessment and such disallowance by reopening
The CESTAT Ahmedabad in the case of M/s Quippo Energy Private Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CE & ST held that the activities carried on by the assessee on imported gensets results into existence of a more functional & operational product catering the needs of industrial consumers
The ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Parul Bhupendra Patel vs. ITO held that reopening of the assessment on the basis of doubting certain information filed in the return of income and reopening assessment on that basis is not valid in law as AO had not obtained any new tangible material to believe that income had escaped assessment.
