The ITAT Delhi in the case of ITO vs. Shree Rajeev Goenka that assessee cannot be said to make full and correct disclosure of all the facts if the return of income due date which he mentioned in return filed is different from the due date he claimed during reassessment proceedings.
The ITAT Bangalore in the case of Hewlett Packard India Sales P. Ltd held that creation of warranty Provision which is much higher than previous years provision cannot be disallowed without examining the scientific basis used by the assessee in working out the same.
Correctness of law laid down by Bombay High Court in Ace Builder 281 ITR 210 that deduction u/s 54EC is available to short-term capital gains computed u/s 50 doubted by ITAT Mumbai in the case of ITO Vs Legal Heir of Shri Durgaprasad Agnihotri although it has followed the Judgment of Bombay High Court as required to maintain judicial discipline.
Infinity Infotech Parks Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Revision u/s 263 is duly authorized where there is a mistake apparent from the records which itself proves that the order passed on this issue by the Assessing Officer was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of Ashima Dyecot Limited vs. DCIT that interest on capital borrowed for plant & machinery which already has put to use for commercial production is allowed u/s 36 (1) (iii). In the given case,
ITAT Mumbai held in ITO Vs Legal Heir of Shri Durgaprasad Agnihotri that to respect the decision given by jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court in CIT vs. Ace Builders (P.) Ltd. [2006] 281 ITR 210 (Bom) it was upholding the decision given by CIT(A) that the exemption u/s 54EC
ITAT held in ITO Vs M/s.Last Peak Data Pvt. Ltd that if the assesse was an existing recognized Software Technology Park (STP) then it would be considered at par at of Special Economic Zone(SEZ) and exemptions available to SEZ would also be available to STP
ACIT vs Advert Communication ( ITAT Delhi) 1.If addition has to be made for bogus purchases then sales should also be disturbed ; 2.Until and unless both parties don’t confirm the cessation of liability then addition cannot be made u/s 41(1); 3.
JCIT Vs M/s Gillander Arbithnot & Co. Ltd (ITAT Kolkata) 1.Assessee would be allowed deduction of payment of employees contribution of ESI and PF if it paid the same before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1). 2. Pooja & Temple expenses would be allowed as a business expenditure because it was related with the harmony of business so business expenditure.
ITAT Bangalore held in Sri Maramma Temple Seva Trust Vs CIT that even if the objective of an organization was both religious and charitable then also registration u/s 12AA could not be denied on the basis that registration could only be granted either to wholly religious
