CBDT Instruction No. 5/2014 dated 10.07.2014 on subject of monetary limit for filing appeals is applicable on pending cases also- ACIT Vs. Suncity Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT DELHI)
In the case of Shri Barjinder Singh Bhatti vs. ITO ITAT has held that in absence of not having any evidence or material before him to contradict the report of the Registered Valuer, AO cannot reject valuation report of Registered Valuer.
No effort or any arguments have been advanced by the Revenue to justify that the expenses were unreasonable and excessive. In the absence of any justification for making a 5% disallowance of the total expenses for royalty
The ITAT Delhi in the case of Seagram Distilleries Pvt. Ltd concluded that the provision for losses in the ordinary course of business can be allowed if the provisions are made on scientific basis. Thus, the provision in respect of breakage losses is allowable as the same have been measured scientifically taking into account the past business experience.
ITAT Mumbai In the case of Color Craft v ITO held that the notice sent through the ‘speed post’ is totally valid in the eyes of law as ‘registered post’. The Hon’ble Tribunal while substantiating their decision relied on section 27 of General Clauses Act which mentions about ‘service by post’
In the present facts of the Case the Hon’ble Tribunal completely relied on the Judgment of M/s. Indsec Securities & Finance Ltd., ITA No. 4236/M/2012, where it was observed that Derivatives are also Stock-in-trade and accordingly the valuation will be done.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee for the year AY 2007-08 regarding the imposition of penalty contended that the Assessee were not aware of the provisions of Law in which the receipt of loan through cheque or bank draft was required.
ITAT Mumbai has in the case of M/s Shoreline Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v CIT held that CIT was justified in invocation of Section 263 when AO has not made any inquiry with regard to the expenses claimed in respect of accommodation bill obtained by assessee that reduced profit of assessee by 100% instead of 15% considered by AO.
The Hon’ble Tribunal observed that the basis for making the addition of Rs. 19.98 crores is the loose paper which doesn’t make any sense. Merely by making additions of all the figures mentioned in the loose paper would not justify the addition of Rs. 19.98 crores.
In the present case there were the three issues which were decided by the Hon’ble Tribunal where it was held that whenever the transactions have been made through proper banking channel, then invocation of section 68 will not be valid.
