ITAT Kolkatta held in Swew Benefit Company Vs DCIT that for disallowing expenses u/s 14A i.e expense incurred for non-taxable income, there had to be some logical strong basis like rule 8D or something else but it could not be disallowed on ad-hoc basis.
ITAT Ahmedabad held in ACIT Vs Amrapali Capital & Financial services Ltd that if the assessee had by mistake wrongly computed its computation of income because of unawareness of the law and he had not revised it return within the time mentioned u/s 139(5)
In the case of Govats Foundation v ITO (Exemption) it is held by ITAT-Hyderabad that the approval u/s 80G(5) could be granted to charitable institution if the certificate granted u/s 12A has not been withdrawn.
ITAT Chandigarh held In the case of M/s Lotus Integrated Taxpark Ltd. vs. The DCIT that the assessee on the basis of the documentary evidence on record has been able to prove that Non Resident Company i.e. M/s Glacis Investment Limited was an existing company
ITAT Delhi Has held In the case of Piyush Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Others vs. ACIT, that despite search and seizure no adverse material was found to substantiate the disallowance made by the A.O. The purchases which are disallowed relate to cement and steel which are essential for the purpose
ITAT Delhi has held In the case of M/s Chemical Sales and Services vs. ITO that the only condition for claiming deduction under section 36(1 )(iii) is commercial expediency of the expenditure incurred and once the said condition is fulfilled
ITAT Delhi held In the case of ITO vs. Hepta Developers Pvt. Limited that notice u/s 148 is foundation of the reassessment proceeding. The notice was sent on wrong address while the correct address was available in the return filed by the assessee.
DCIT vs. M/s Presidency Exports & Industries Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) We do agree that in a matter of condonation of delay when there is no negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide approach, the liberal approach has to be adopted to advance substantial justice. In the fact
ITAT held In the case of Das Plaza vs. ITO that the closing stock has to be taken at the end of the year not in the middle of the year. If any addition has to be made that to be made only difference in the value as at the end of the year.
ITAT held In the case of ACIT vs. Raj Kumar Jalan that in view of the proposition laid down by the Honble Delhi high Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bharat Bhusan Jain and others in ITA No.648/09 and 669/2009 etc order dated 08.01.2015
