ITAT Bangalore held In the case of M/s B & B Infotech Ltd. vs. ITO that once P&L A/c is admittedly prepared as per Schedule VI of the Companies Act, then neither the AO has any power to tinker with it nor the assessee is permitted to claim exclusion or inclusion of any item of income
DCIT VS. Maharashtra State Electricity Board (ITAT MUMBAI) The assessee was entitled to get subsidy @3% from the state government. As per the agreement with WB it was decided that it would get higher subsidy i.e. 4.5 %.
Chopra Properties Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) AO was of the view that according to provisions of Section 44AB assessee is required to get his accounts audited before specified date and not on the specified date. Therefore, as assessee has obtained this tax audit report on 30th September 2008 and not before 30th September, 2008, therefore, levied penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- u/s 271B of the IT Act.
JCIT Vs. Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) In the above group cases search was conducted and assessments were framed u/s 153A/143 (3). The search was conducted on 21.03.2007 and concluded on 22.03.2007. Hence last of the authorisation of search u/s 132 was executed on 22.03.2007.
New Delhi Television Ltd. Vs. ACIT- Bench of ITAT Delhi reversed the order passed by CIT (A) in which he confirmed the reassessment order after the lapse of four year when no new facts was revealed by the AO.
DCIT (TDS) Vs. Punjab Infratructure & Development Board, Chandigarh (ITAT Chandigarh)- When payee or resident has filed its return of income disclosing the payment received by and in which the income earned by it is embedded and has also paid tax on such income
In the case of Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya vs ACIT, ITAT Kolkata held that although the satisfaction need not be recorded in a particular manner but from a reading of the assessment order as a whole such satisfaction should be clearly discernible.
In the case of M/s A.V. Industries vs ACIT, Mumbai Tribunal held that when the assessee shows from the record that the necessary enquiries were made by the AO and the AO had applied his mind and the view adopted by him was one of the possible views
In Mohan Jhangiani vs ACIT, Kolkata Tribunal held that Non-consideration of the relevant provisions of the Act while forming a belief that income has escaped assessment is not permissible as per law. Further, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 by the Learned AO
In the Case of ACIT vs Sri Pawan Kumar Jhunjhunwala, ITAT Kolkata held that solicitor is the agent of the client. The client makes over the money to the solicitor for some work being done by the solicitor as his agent.
