ITAT Hyderabad held that the Tribunal has no power to recall/review its own orders in terms of scope and power of Tribunal for rectification of order u/s. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that expenditure incurred on software project, which was sought to be developed however never came into existence and no new asset came into existence which would be of an enduring benefit to the assessee, are allowable as revenue in nature.
ITAT Delhi held that holding company can adopt FMV of the asset held by subsidiary company and rework value of investment held in subsidiary company, such approach is not contract to section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that when the reserve/provisions created in the year where the assessee has increased the book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act, the assessee is entitled to reduce the amount withdrawn from such reserve if the same is credited to the P & L account in that year.
ITAT Mumbai held that when part refund is granted it should be first adjusted towards outstanding interest and then against the tax payable. Interest u/s. 244A of the Income Tax Act directed to be calculated accordingly.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that additional interest under section 244A(1A) is applicable where there is a delay in granting the refund due to the assessee. Provisions of addition interest are effective prospectively from 01.06.2016.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act justified as deduction was claimed u/s. 54EC and 54F of the Income Tax Act by furnishing inaccurate particulars.
ITAT Mumbai held that accommodation entries in the nature of bogus unsecured loans is liable to be added as unexplained under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, addition u/s. 68 confirmed.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Income Tax Act not imposable as AO failed to link additional income disclosed by the assessee with the incriminating material found during search. Thus, penalty u/s. 271AAB deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that initiation of reopening of assessment based on mere change of opinion and not taking into account the work-in-progress method of accounting followed by the assessee is unjustifiable and liable to be quashed.
