ITAT Hyderabad held that in case of violation of provisions of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, penalty can be only in the year in which violation has taken place and not in any assessment year.
ITAT Jaipur held that delayed payment of employee contribution to PF/ESI as prescribed u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act is beyond the ambit of adjustments to be carried out u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Hyderabad held that it is mandatory for CIT(A) to grant responsible opportunity to the Assessing Officer in case additional evidence is admitted. However, in the present case, the documents based on which relief is granted was already available with the department and hence there is no violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules.
Section 92C(1) of Act, contemplates that arms length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by comparable uncontrolled price method; resale price method; cost plus method; profit split method; transactional net margin method or such other method as may be prescribed by Board.
ITAT Mumbai held that conducting or participating in exhibitions within India or overseas for promotion of Gem and Jewellery Industry couldn’t be regarded as commercial activity for the purpose of proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act.
Held that if such loan or advances given to such shareholder as a consequence of any further consideration, which is beneficial to the company received from such shareholder then in such advance or loan cannot be said to be deemed dividend within the ambit of section 2(22)(e) of the Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance for deduction under section 80IB and 80IC of the Income Tax Act corresponding to the allocation of R&D expenditure is deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that stamp duty valuation as on the date of allotment letters, and not the date of execution of agreement to sell, should be considered for the purpose of section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be imposed on the basis of legal fiction of section 50C of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Amritsar held that appellant being a government undertaking is required to take necessary permission for filing of an appeal from its head office. Delay in getting the permission resulted into delay in filing of an appeal. Such not intentional or mala fide delay should be condoned.
