In case of ITO Vs. M/s. Northern India Transport Company the Appellate Tribunal of New Delhi has held that Assessment Order Passed by the Assessing Officer having no jurisdiction to Assess the entity is null and void.
ITAT Pune held in Mrs Sarita Manjeet Singh Chopra Vs ITO that if the assesse had disclosed its unaccounted income filing return u/s 153A only after it was caught in search by the income tax department then that disclosed income through return would be considered as undisclosed income
ACIT Vs. S.P.Cold Storage (ITAT Raipur)- Mere mentioning of name in Search Warrant & Panchanama not sufficient for contemplating search against the assessee firm, Search at the residential premises of the Partners could not be deemed to be a search on the assessee firm
In the case of S.L. Shiva Raj Vs. DCIT Hyderabad Bench of ITAT uphold the penalty order by holding that the penalty is levied with reference to original return of income and not with reference to the assessment made consequent to the disclosure by assessee.
ITAT Lucknow held In the case of M/s Vijay Infrastructure Limited vs. ACIT that on the basis of general observations, without pointing out even a single specific defect in the vouchers or books of accounts, ad hoc disallowance made by Assessing Officer is not justifiable.
DCIT vs. Smt. Suman Jagannath Pharande (ITAT Pune) For the contention of inclusion of Canopy area in total built area, the ITAT held that built up area means the inner measurement of the residential unit at the floor level, including the projection and balconies, as increased by the thickness of the walls but does not include the common area shared with other residential units.
ITAT Hyderabad held in M/s DQ Entertainment (International) Ltd Vs ACIT that if the effect of expenses has been given in the balance sheet then the upward TP adjustment could not be made because the same had not been charged to P&L account and so same could not be be added to the income of the assessee.
ITAT Jaipur held in DCIT Vs. M/s Ashiana Ispat Ltd that if the facts and circumstances were same in the assesse’s own case of earlier years then, disallowance could not be made if the same was allowed in the earlier years by any appellate authority.
VAT collected by the assessee was in respect of traded goods dealt in by the assessee and in view of the provisions of section 145A of the Act, the value of the VAT was to be included as part of sale consideration of the traded goods and once the same is to be included as part of the sale goods
In the case of ACIT Vs. Dr. Nitin Laxmikant Lad Pune Bench of ITAT have held that where assessee had furnished original return of income in which he had not declared its receipts from the profession, but pursuant to the search and seizure operation, certain incriminating documents were seized
