The ITAT Bench Jaipur in the above cited case held that as per CBDT circular 6/2016 dated 29.02.2016 , if the assessee has treated the securities as investment and not as stock in trade earlier years,the revenue is not permitted to take a contrary view in the present year to claim that the security is stock in trade
The ITAT Bench Cochin held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction u/s 80 IB(7) if its incomes are derived from eligible business irrespective of the manner in which the entries in the books of account are maintained.
HC held that Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) was in the nature of an Amnesty Scheme and, therefore, its provisions have to be strictly interpreted. Infact, the scheme was a settlement between the assessee and the department and from the terms of the settlement neither party can be permitted to retract.
The ITAT bench of Mumbai in the above cited case held that investment in share capital of a subsidiary being an international transaction on capital account does not result in income as defined under section 2(24) of the Act, the Transfer Pricing provisions a would not be applicable to such transaction. Further, in the absence of thin capitalization rules, re-characterization of debt capital into equity or vice versa not allowed.
The ITAT Delhi in the case of DCIT vs. M/s Leroy Somer & Controls held that the internally generated documents by company without confirmation of the same by the other party are not sufficient to make a claim of discount.
The ITAT Kolkata in the case of M/s AT & S India P. Ltd. held that the reimbursement made to holding co. by its subsidiary towards the share technology services is not taxable in the hands of receiving co. (holding co.) because the reimbursement is not an income for the holding co.
The CESTAT Mumbai in the case of Vipul-S Plasticrafts P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise held that when the rule under which duty is sought to be demanded itself has been struck down as unconstitutional by various High Courts, the show-cause notice which are based upon rule 8(3A) cannot survive and are liable to be set aside.
The ITAT Delhi in the case of Raj Kumar Mangla vs. ACIT(Inv Circle), Gurgaon held that when a clear order transferring the jurisdiction is passed by a competent authority in law the AO from whose jurisdiction transfer was ordered can no longer assume his jurisdiction over the assessee.
The ITAT Mumbai in the case of M/s Goldfilled Mercantile Company vs. DCIT held that when the assessee shown lesser capital gain in its return of income under a bonafide belief of a deduction from it but paid due taxes then the assessee cannot be penalized u/s 271(1)(c) as there was no intention
The ITAT Delhi in the case of Shri Ashutosh Garg vs. ACIT held that when the assessee had produced his copy of bank accounts showing the advancing of loan to non-resident and its repayment collection along with affidavit filed both by non-resident and assessee
