ITAT Kolkata held that VAT and CST even if not included in value of closing stock do not result in undervaluation of closing stock because of its corresponding non-inclusion in Opening Stock , Purchases and Sales.
ITAT held that it is generally accepted prudent practice that the closing stock to be valued at lower of cost or net realizable value. Further, net realizable value means the value which the goods would fetch at the time of actual sale.
Since redemption of preference shares does not result in reduction of share capital as per Sec 80 of the Companies Act,1956 , the redemption value cannot be taxed as deemed dividend as the distribution of profits if at all there may be is not resulting in reduction of capital.
ITAT held that simultaneous trading of shares in cash segment and arbitrage in derivative segment by assessee company cannot be splitted into speculative and non-speculative transactions . So, as soon as it is found that assessee is trading in shares , the entire trading activity to be treated as speculative business as per explanation to Sec 73 which clearly state that if any part of assessee’s business is trading in shares then the same trading to be treated as speculative business.
The Hon’ble Bombay High court in the above cited case held that a consideration receivable by the transferor which is contingent on happening of a future event the outcome of which is uncertain and cannot be predicted with a reasonable degree of certainty.
The ITAT Mumbai held that the provisions of Sec 50C is applicable only to transfer of land of which the assessee is absolute and legal owner and cannot be applicable to the transfer of leasehold rights in land.Thus, the transfer value cannot be benchmarked to stamp duty value.
The ITAT Mumbai in the above cited case held that raising of invoices per se doesn’t result in accrual of income rather an income can be considered to have been accrued only when there is a corresponding liability of the other party to pay the amount to the assessee and there is realistic probability of realization of the income to the assessee.
The Hon’ble Kerala HC in the above cited case held that exempting cable operators from luxury tax while making DTH operators to pay the same is a case of discriminatory levy of luxury tax merely because of technological differences in the system of deliveryof entertainment in both the services.
The ITAT Kolkata in the above cited case held that if the additional income disclosed by assessee u/s 132(4) voluntarily without being any incriminating material found during the course of search , then department cannot levy penalty u/s 271AAA on such voluntarily disclosed income.
ITAT held that making of an incorrect claim by assessee which is supported by a report of Chartered Accountant cannot be hold as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not warranted as the claim made under bonafide belief.
