The ITAT Mumbai in the case of Monsanto India Limited held that when the assessee at the time of transfer of business agrees for a consideration not to carry on same line of business for a certain period of time , then such an arrangement is definitely a transfer(surrender) of right to carry on business .
The ITAT Mumbai in the case of Dharma Productions Pvt. Ltd. held that the advertisement expenditure incurred after the censor board film certification would be a post-production expenditure not allowable under Rule 9A or 9B of the IT Rules, 1962.
Food world Supermarkets Ltd. vs.DCIT- ITAT Bangalore observed that the 5 seconded employees were not ordinary employees or workers but they were deputed at the high level managerial/executive positions which showed that they were deputed because of expertise and managerial skills in the field.
The return of income was filed on 31.10.2005 at an income of Rs. 4,04,020/- for AY 2005-06. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO took note of the fact that the assessee and his wife purchased property at front and rear side of portion at ground floor for a consideration of 40 Lakh each and 3,20,000 was paid as stamp duty on each portion.
In the case of M/s. Equant Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT Delhi Bench of ITAT remanded back the matter and held that DRP has not met the contention of the assessee in respect of inclusion/exclusion of comparable in its order.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Wel Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO that there is no dispute that for purchasing the property at Munirka for a consideration of Rs.9,37,33,600, the assessee had taken loan from HDFC Bank for Rs.6.50 crores on which the authorities below have allowed the interest paid by the assessee.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Avaya India (P) Ltd. vs ACIT that a perusal of the annual report of company reveals that the said company has made income from sale of license to the tune of more than Rs.1 crore,
M/s Bridal Jewellery Mfg. Co.Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee was engaged in the manufacturing of jewellery, during the process of manufacturing on behalf of the customers
The ITAT Delhi in the case of Digital Radio Broadcasting Ltd. held that the migration from one phase to another phase cannot be considered as transfer of license awarded under phase I particularly when the license agreement restrict any type of transfer or assignment of license or rights thereunder.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of Ami Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that the assessee has explained one to one nexus namely cash funds received from sale of Bangalore property, and its utilization for Pune property.
