ITAT Jaipur held In the case of Balbir Singh vs, ACIT that it is not open for the AO to make addition on estimation basis without verifying that said expenses are genuine or not. Mere fact that payments were made in cash on self made vouchers
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of Lubrizol Advanced Materials India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that after the retrospective amendment to the second proviso to section 92C (2) by the Finance Act, 2012, there remains no ambiguity that the benefit of tolerance margin is available only when the variation
ITAT held in ACIT Vs Ms Shyam Basic that if the assessee had made a wrong claim in the return of income but had furnished full particulars in its return of income then it would not amount to concealment if income and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not be levied.
ITAT New Delhi held in Indo Count Industries Ltd Vs DCIT( ITAT New Delhi) that it all depends upon the facts of the case that whether the assesse was eligible to claim exemption u/s 10B for all the units as a single entity or every unit was independently eligible to claim exemption u/s 10B as a separate unit.
ITAT Delhi held in M/s Sundowner offshore International (Bermuda) Ltd Vs ADIT (International Taxation, Dehradun) that for calculating the gross receipts for sec 44BB, reimbursement of service tax not to be included in gross receipts and 10% of the total gross receipts without considering the service tax would be taken as taxable income of the assesse.
ITAT Hyderabad held In the case of M/s. KNR Constructions Ltd. vs. DCIT that no such adverse inference however was drawn by the A.O. in the case of the concerned two sub-contractors and in the assessments completed under section 143(3) in their cases
Smt. Shakeera Begum vs. ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) In the instant case, as the municipal approvals, completion certificates and authentic plans were not available, the ITAT could not conclude whether assessee had constructed new independent house and there was no evidence that the old building was ever demolished.
In the case of Pegasystems Worldwide India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT Hyderabad Bench of ITAT directed the AO to reduce communication cost not only from export turnover but also from the total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction as per Explanation 2 to section 10A.
In the case of M/s Bhagwati Motors Vs. ITO Chandigarh bench of ITAT have held that Assessee merely acted as a conduit without any right in money, therefore, no addition under section 69A of the Act could be made against the assessee.
ITAT Jaipur held in case of ACIT Vs. Smt. Ranjana Johari that if change made in the wooden article which resulted in to a new and different article then it would amount to manufacturing activity. The assessee, Ranjana Johari, had undertaken different activities to shape up
