ITAT Delhi held in the case DCIT vs. M/s. Sam India Abhimanyu Housing that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA when the present assessee is not covered u/s 132 i.e. search conducted on the Assessee.
ITAT Bangalore held in the case M/s Jeans Knit Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT that it is clear that the balance in the reserve and surplus is only on account of security premium amount after reducing the loss incurred by the assessee for the earlier year as well as during the year under consideration.
ITAT Pune held in the case Shri M.D. Wadhokar vs. CIT that it is an admitted fact that neither any details of donations were called for by the AO nor the assessee has given the breakup of such details during the course of assessment proceedings.
M/s. D.S. Kulkarni Developers Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITAT Pune)- Tribunal held that the building plans for the residential and amenities space were sanctioned independently and merely because a common lay out plan was passed by the authorities, does not disentitle the assessee to the claim of deduction under section 80IB (10).
ITAT Delhi held in the case ITO vs. Rekha Bansal that it is clear that the CIT (A) granted relief to the assessee on the basis of information received from the respective banks of the creditors u/s 133(6) wherein the CIT (A) found that the creditors had sufficient bank balance in their accounts before issuing cheques to the assessee.
ITAT Lucknow held in the case DCIT vs. M/s J.K. Cement Ltd. that certain conditions are made in the subsidy scheme, which is required to be fulfilled by the corporate sector in order to avail the benefit of subsidy.
During the financial year 2001-02 the assessee had installed wind energy project at a cost of Rs.1189.87 lakhs. The assessee accordingly applied for the said capital subsidy which was granted to the assessee during the relevant financial year 2007-08 at Rs.20 lakhs.
ITAT Delhi held in the case of M/s. Shivalik Prints Limited vs. ACIT that in the judgment of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. 306 ITR 392 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme court have held that the character of the receipt of a subsidy in the hands of the assessee under a scheme has to be determined with respect to the purpose for which the subsidy is granted i.e. one has to apply the purpose test.
ITAT Lucknow held in the case of DCIT vs. M/s E-Soft Technologies Ltd. that as per the CBDT Circular No. 01 of 2013 and as per the Tribunal decision of the Pune Bench in the case of ACIT Vs Symantec Software India P. Ltd in ITA No. 787/PN/09, dated 30th November 2011
ITAT Mumbai held in the case ITO vs. Smt. Elsa Silva that as per the agreement , ‘Athithi Builders’ has acquired the development rights of the said property after paying separately and directly by cheque Rs.2.73 crores to the assessee, Rs.1.23 Crores to Shri D.P.Koli and Rs.0.50 crores to Shri Alex Silva.
