ITAT Pune held In the case of ACIT vs. RDS Construction Pvt. Ltd. that on the matter of adjustment of seized cash with the self assessment tax, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) since the assessee vide letter dated 30-03-2010
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Tata Consultancy Services that section 80HHC does not place any restriction to shift the claim of deduction or exemption under any other provision in respect of profits for which no deduction has been claimed and allowed in the previous year.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of M/s Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT that a careful perusal of provisions of sec. 132(4) as well sec. 292C would show that the said provisions state that the statement taken u/s 132(4) “may be used in evidence in any proceeding under the Act”.
The ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Waves Food Private Limited vs. DCIT held that reopening of assessment to disallow provision for damaged goods returned is not valid as the issue had been specifically dealt by AO during the course of regular assessment and such disallowance by reopening
ITAT held in Sumitomo Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT that if the case of assessee was decided in the earlier assessment years and if the facts and circumstances were same as in the previous years ,then in the current year also same basis for assessment should be adopted.
ITAT-Ahmedabad In the case of M/s Shiv Associates v DCIT quashed the notice u/s 153C relying on the Judgment of the similar case related to the assessee in which the notices u/s 153C were quashed as no satisfaction was recorded by the AO.
ITAT Kolkata held in case of ITO v Smt. Gayatri Chakroborty that where the transactions are mutual in nature or there is benefit or no benefit to each other, then these kind of transactions will not come under the purview of section 2(22)(e).
ITAT Mumbai held in the case of DCIT v. Rama Capital and Financial Services Ltd. that without any substantive ground reopening cannot be done on the basis of change of opinion. It Further held that without any supporting material, the A.O. cannot substitute market value.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of DCIT v. The Indian Hotels Co. Pvt. Ltd. that principle of consistency should be followed when there were similar issues and the similar principal was laid down in the case of Assessee’s Sister Concern.
In the Case of the Dasrathbhai Narandas Patel v ITO, ITAT-Ahmedabad held that the assessment Proceedings are completely different from Penalty Proceedings and before initiating the penalty proceedings there should be some convincing and corroborative evidence.
