Mr.Vinod D Motiwala Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- AO has considered the fact that the assessee did not carry on any agricultural activity. In our view, the absence of agricultural activity cannot be considered to be the sole ground to determine the intention of the assessee.
ITO Vs. Shri pardeep Singh Hooda (ITAT Chandigarh) ITAT held that there was no big or unreasonable gap between the amount withdrawn from the bank account and paid for purchase of the property. Since the amount was taken into cashbook after withdrawal from the bank account
M/s Trident Limited vs. The Addl. CIT (ITAT Chandigarh) Assessee company made an investment of Rs. 5038.88 lacs and Rs. 4575.77 Lacs as on 31.03.2006 & 31.03.2007 in various tax free equity funds, from which assessee company gain an dividend of Rs. 46,91,849/-.
HDFC Bank Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- Also the judgment of Biocon Ltd vs. Dy. CIT [2013] 25 ITR (Trib) 602 (Bang) (SB) in which it was held that discount on the issue of shares to employee under the ESOP is an allowed expenditure u/s 37 is binding on us.
ITAT New Delhi held In the case of Tristar Intech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT that for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) there should be concealment of income on the part of assessee. In the given case AO has initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c)
ITAT New Delhi held In the case of Venus Financial Services Ltd. vs. ACIT that the Assessing Officer has no power to replace the value of the consideration agreed between the parties with any fair market value or estimation.
Mumbai ITAT held In the case of Shri Hafeez S Contractor vs. ACIT that penalty u/s 271(1) (c) cannot be imposed in those cases where no specific charges are mentioned in penalty notice. In the given case the AO has not specified that as to which limb the notice was issued
ACIT Vs. Shri Laxmi Narain Agarwal (ITAT Jaipur)- It is contended that the order of the ld. CIT(A) will reveal that no specific defects in the books of account were found by the AO. The assessee’s working site being at remote place, cash payment to labourer through self made vouchers
ACIT Vs. M/s. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. (ITAT Jaipur)- he AO disallowed the payment on the ground that though the amount was paid by the assessee but was not paid within the due date as given under the respective Acts of GPF, CPF and ESI.
Mumbai ITAT held In the case of Shri Uday C Tamhankar that the submission of assessee that the assessment years up to 2006-07 falls in the category of concluded assessments, i.e., assessments of those years were not pending on the date of initiation of search is a valid submission.
