ITAT Mumbai held In the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Employees Stock Option Trust vs. ADCIT that the attributes available in the transaction of the assesee trust are unlike that of a trader and are more like that of an investor.
ITAT Bangalore held In the case of M.R Pattabhiram (HUF) vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Wealth tax that mere conversion of land from agriculture to non-agriculture could not be taken as the sole criteria to hold it as a capital asset under section 2(14) of the Income tax act.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of The ACIT vs. Institute of Chemical Technology University of Mumbai that the consultancy work done by the assessee – University through its professors, in which part income is held by university and the rest lying with respective professors, is not in any way relatable to the aims and object for which the assessee was established.
The ITAT Bangalore in the case of Nanda Gokula vs. CIT held that denial of registration u/s 12AA by the CIT by considering only the ancillary objects is unfair, because it is the main objects of the trust which are required to be tested for their charitable nature.
The ITAT Bangalore in the case of Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Ltd. held that the excess expenditure incurred in earlier previous years can be set off against the income of trust for the current year as an application of income because Section 11(1)(a) does not contain any words of limitation
DCIT Vs Shri Jitendra Maganlal Shah (ITAT Ahemdabad) Assessee surrendered Rs.81,77,930/- during the course of survey proceedings covering the excess stock investment, expenses, etc. The assessee had declared a net profit @ 9.16% if the amount surrendered is taken into account
In the case of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT CPC-TDS, assessee was required to deduct tax and has deducted TDS @ 2% of sum paid/credited to GETCO Ltd. but due to filing of wrong PAN of deductee it has been deemed as assessee in default and accordingly 18% of remaining
Rajasthan Patrikia Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT- ITAT Jaipur held that newspapers and periodicals are distinct commodity than the paper, printing ink and other ingredients used therein. Since a new commercial product comes into existence
ITAT Chennai held in The ACIT Vs M/s Mansi Finance Chennai Ltd that if the agricultural land purchased by the assessee was not with an adventure in the nature of trade then that agricultural land could not be treated as a capital asset and liable for capital gain.
ITAT Hyderabad upholds AMD R&D’s plea on depreciation impact in transfer pricing. Infosys, L&T, Mindtree excluded. Get insights into the ruling.
