ITAT Delhi held in the case of M/s. Shivalik Prints Limited vs. ACIT that in the judgment of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme court have held that the character of the receipt of a subsidy in the hands of the assessee under a scheme has to be determined with respect to the purpose for which the subsidy is granted i.e. one has to apply the purpose test.
ITAT Lucknow held in the case of DCIT vs. M/s E-Soft Technologies Ltd. that as per the CBDT Circular No. 01 of 2013 and as per the Tribunal decision of the Pune Bench in the case of ACIT Vs Symantec Software India P. Ltd in ITA No. 787/PN/09, dated 30th November 2011
ITAT Mumbai held in the case ITO vs. Smt. Elsa Silva that as per the agreement , ‘Athithi Builders’ has acquired the development rights of the said property after paying separately and directly by cheque Rs.2.73 crores to the assessee, Rs.1.23 Crores to Shri D.P.Koli and Rs.0.50 crores to Shri Alex Silva.
The initial assessment year has been defined and the expression or’ has been used in respect of new units by stating commences operation’ or complete substantial expansion’. Here the expression or’ is to be read as a mutually exclusive expression which refers to a particular situation by excluding the other situation.
Where no question was asked during statement recorded under section 132(4), in respect of manner of earning income surrendered, assessee could not be expected to substantiate same later on; penalty could not be levied under section 271AAA
We understand that in case of search, assessee is to comply with law and various declaration and formalities which certainly take lot of time. From the aforesaid situation and circumstances, it is clear that there was sufficient cause which prevented the assessee to pay wealth tax in the wealth tax return
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.
ITAT Mumbai held in the case Syncom Formulations (I) Ltd. vs. DCIT that receiving of gifts by doctors is prohibited by MCI guidelines but giving of the same by manufacturer is not prohibited under any law for the time being in force.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of M/s. Ideal Appliances Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that it is settled legal position that no addition can be made to the income already assessed since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search.
ITAT Lucknow held In the case of ITO vs. Shri Rajesh Agarwal that undisputedly notice of hearing under section 143(2) was issued on the last day of limitation/prescribed period for issuance of notice i.e. on 30.9.2011 at 15.19 hours by speed post.
