ACIT vs Advert Communication ( ITAT Delhi) 1.If addition has to be made for bogus purchases then sales should also be disturbed ; 2.Until and unless both parties don’t confirm the cessation of liability then addition cannot be made u/s 41(1); 3.
JCIT Vs M/s Gillander Arbithnot & Co. Ltd (ITAT Kolkata) 1.Assessee would be allowed deduction of payment of employees contribution of ESI and PF if it paid the same before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1). 2. Pooja & Temple expenses would be allowed as a business expenditure because it was related with the harmony of business so business expenditure.
ITAT Bangalore held in Sri Maramma Temple Seva Trust Vs CIT that even if the objective of an organization was both religious and charitable then also registration u/s 12AA could not be denied on the basis that registration could only be granted either to wholly religious
ITAT Chandigarh held In the case of M/s GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd vs. The JCIT that it is a settled law that an unascertained liability has to be allowed even if the same is quantified on a future date.
Where AO allowed interest on capital and remuneration paid to the partners from the estimated income on the basis of partnership deed, assessment made by AO on estimation of income could not be treated as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for invoking the jurisdiction under section 263.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Spice Retail Ltd. that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on advertisement has been treated as revenue in nature. It is not open for the AO to treat an expenditure as party revenue in nature and balance 25% as deferred revenue expenditure.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of M/s. National Pharmaceuticals vs. ITO that there is no straight jacket formula can be applied to check sufficient reasons for late filing of appeal. It will depend on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of M/s SRK Education & Research Charitable Trust vs. CIT that it is clear in this case that the CIT refused to grant the trust registration because there was no dissolution clause in the trust deed and also the assessee had not done any charitable activity.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of The ACIT vs. M/s Sandeep Shrivastava that AO is not authorized to make any addition merely on account of presumption. In this case because the assessee is Share holder and Director of the company, which sold the property
ITAT Lucknow held In the case of M/s Clara Swain Hospital vs. ITO that no capital gain liability can be imposed on the assessee where he does not own the asset and more ever he has not received any payment for such transfer.
