ITAT Mumbai held in the case ITO vs. Smt. Sudha Brijratan Damani that in the case of CIT v. P.S. Jain & Co. (2011) 335 ITR 591, Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that by passage of time, money value has gone down, the cost of litigation expenses has gone up, the assessees on the file of the Departments
Ideal Appliances Co. Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Although Section 153A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found
ITAT Delhi held in the case of M/s Tirupati LPG Industries Ltd. vs. JCIT that a plain reading of Sec.80-IC (8)(v) which defines the term initial assessment year read with Sec.80-IC(8)(ix) which defines the term substantial expansion makes it clear that there is no restriction on more than one substantial expansion being undertaken by an assessee.
ITAT Delhi held in the case DCIT vs. M/s. Sam India Abhimanyu Housing that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA when the present assessee is not covered u/s 132 i.e. search conducted on the Assessee.
ITAT Bangalore held in the case M/s Jeans Knit Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT that it is clear that the balance in the reserve and surplus is only on account of security premium amount after reducing the loss incurred by the assessee for the earlier year as well as during the year under consideration.
ITAT Pune held in the case Shri M.D. Wadhokar vs. CIT that it is an admitted fact that neither any details of donations were called for by the AO nor the assessee has given the breakup of such details during the course of assessment proceedings.
M/s. D.S. Kulkarni Developers Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITAT Pune)- Tribunal held that the building plans for the residential and amenities space were sanctioned independently and merely because a common lay out plan was passed by the authorities, does not disentitle the assessee to the claim of deduction under section 80IB (10).
ITAT Delhi held in the case ITO vs. Rekha Bansal that it is clear that the CIT (A) granted relief to the assessee on the basis of information received from the respective banks of the creditors u/s 133(6) wherein the CIT (A) found that the creditors had sufficient bank balance in their accounts before issuing cheques to the assessee.
ITAT Lucknow held in the case DCIT vs. M/s J.K. Cement Ltd. that certain conditions are made in the subsidy scheme, which is required to be fulfilled by the corporate sector in order to avail the benefit of subsidy.
During the financial year 2001-02 the assessee had installed wind energy project at a cost of Rs.1189.87 lakhs. The assessee accordingly applied for the said capital subsidy which was granted to the assessee during the relevant financial year 2007-08 at Rs.20 lakhs.
