In the case of Shri Hasmukh N. Gala vs. ITO, ITAT has held that if assessee has invested substantial amount in new property, also received letter of allotment for new property then AO can’t denied exemption available u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act 1961.
DCIT vs. M/s Garware Polyester Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) The Assessing Officer does not have the power to tinker with such accounts prepared as per Schedule VI and certified by the Auditors except for the adjustments permissible by Explanation to Sec 115JB to arrive at book profits
The ITAT Bangalore in the case of M/ s Sigma Aldrich Chemicals P. Ltd. held that when short landing of goods is common having regard to the nature of goods and such loss is negligible , then it has to be allowed deduction as business expenditure.
A sum of Rs.7 lakhs, shown to have been received as gift from Shri Jamaluddin Sheik Fareed, was treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not furnished confirmation letter from the party.
ITAT Mumbai held in case of ACIT vs. Suryashankar Properties Limited that Intention of letting out the property is to be seen for invoking clause (c) of section 23(1) for computing the annual letting value of the property and it is irrelevant whether the property is/was let out.
In the case M/s. Ashok Trading Co. Vs. ITO the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that as per sub-section (2) of 115WD, if the assessee had not filed the return of Fringe Benefit but in the opinion of the AO he should have filed the return
In the case of Pankaj Plastic Industries Vs. ITO the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that The materials found in the course of survey would not be the basis for making any addition in the assessment. The word “may” used in section 133A (3)(iii) of the Act makes it clear that the materials collected
ITAT Delhi held in the case American Express (India) Private Limited vs. DCIT that even though the assessee in its TP study has included the turnover filter of less than Rs.1 crore, the assessee has given reasons for inclusion of these two companies in the list of comparables
The ITAT Hyderabad in the case of Sri Surakshitha Homes vs. ITO held that where the AO has assessed income on estimation basis then CIT cannot order to revise the assessment by picking and choosing some aspects of estimation to be re-verified.
We find that there is no concept of deferred revenue expenditure under the Income Tax Act except under certain specific, provisions like section 35D. Therefore, unless statutory provision is there to defer the revenue expenditure over a period
