ITAT Delhi held In the case of M/s. Continental Device India Ltd. vs. ACIT that Explanation 3 to section 43(1) is not an absolute rule. The Assessing Officer is empowered to substitute the value. However, such a valuation cannot be substituted where there is no intent to reduce the tax liability.
ACIT Vs. Menzies Aviation Bobba (Banglore) Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Banglore) Revenue filed above appeal against the order of CIT (A) who held that BIAL is statutory body as per requirement of section 80IA (4) (i) of the Income-tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of DCIT vs. Viraj Profiles Ltd. that section 14A provides that it mandates disallowance of expenditure ‘in relation’ to the income which does not form part of the total income while clause (f) in explanation1 to Section 115JB (2) mandates disallowance of expenditure ‘relatable’
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of Shakti Cable Industries vs. ITO that it is clear that the words mistake apparent from record, as appearing in the section 254(2) has a special meaning and definite connotation.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of Inventurus Knowledge Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO that it is clear that the eligible transactions in derivatives carried out through recognized stock exchanges are exempted from the purview of speculation transactions u/s 43(5) provided other conditions are satisfied.
Hon’ble ITAT decided in this matter that reopening without application of mind is liable to quash and also elaborate that examination of facts and information received is necessary before reopening. In addition to this legal ground ITAT also heard the appeal on merits
ITAT Pune held In the case of M/s. D.J. Malpani vs. ACIT that in respect of the assessments which are completed prior to the date of search, no fresh claim of deduction can be made by the assessee. Therefore in the given case, assessee is not entitled to make a fresh claim in the return filed u/s.153A
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. vs. ADIT that the said issue is already covered in favour of the assessee by tribunal decision given in earlier years in which the tribunal held that the contracts are divisible.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of M/s. Mohair Investment and Trading Company (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT that it is clear that the present issue, related to application of section 14A, especially in relation to shares held as trading assets
ITAT Kolkata held In the case of UCO Bank vs. DCIT that Sec.115JB will be applicable only where the assessee is required to show profit & loss account in accordance with schedule VI of Companies Act. As the banks are required to prepare Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account in accordance
