ITAT Ahmedabad held that consideration received by the assessee, being an entry provider, as accommodation entry cannot be taxed entirely as business income.
ITAT Chennai held that payment towards purchase of wet grinders and accessories were mainly made to a cottage industry and accordingly such payment is not hit by the provisions of section 40A(3) as payment made to a cottage industry is excluded under rule 6DD(F) of the Income Tax Rules.
ITAT Bangalore held that if for reasons given by CIT(A) working capital adjustment cannot be allowed to the profit margins, then the comparable uncontrolled transactions chosen for the purpose of comparison will have to be treated as not comparable in terms of Rule 10B(3) of the Rules. Matter remanded to re-compute the working capital adjustment.
ITAT Chandigarh held that suspicions entertained by the Revenue cannot be the basis of unsettling the valid order and hence revisionary order proceeded entirely on presumptions, conjectures and surmises is liable to be quashed.
ITAT Bangalore held that expenditure of ESOP cross-charge is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, said amount remitted by the assessee to ultimate holding company, and hence allowable expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
Income tax addition could not be made under section 43CA in absence of element of transfer. When assessee was not an owner of any asset, there couldn’t be any question of transferring the same to someone else whether provisions of sec43CA was complied with or not would be a secondary issue.
ITAT Delhi held that addition based on DVO report regarding construction of cost of property unsustainable as DVO applied CPWD rates, however, it is settled law that State PWD rate is better guiding factor for arriving at cost of construction of the property.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition towards unexplained investment sustained as assessee couldnt explain the source of investment. Onus is on the assessee to explain the source of investment.
If the recipient of income has deposited tax timely in the form of advance tax to revenue, there is no loss suffered to revenue, and no liability for penal interest can be invoked.
ITAT Mumbai held that deduction u/s 36(1)(via) is to be allowed on the total outstanding advances at the end of each month considering the opening balances.
