The ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of M/s Ruchi Developers vs. ITO, where Assessee has failed to produce creditor parties in respect of alleged Bogus Purchases while he submitted all other details and evidences and additions been made,
In the case of M/s Kantilal Siyaram vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad), the assessee has claimed that advance tax was paid, which was not recorded in the original return on the income which was remained to be disclosed in original return.
ITAT Ahmedabad held in case of ITO vs. M/s Tirupati Enterprises held that the revenue has to be recognized only at the time when substantial risk and reward are transferred to the buyer by the seller. Since the construction was incomplete, the property was not ready for sale.
In the case of ACIT vs. Smarneev Fashions Pvt. Ltd, ITAT Ahmedabad held that merely because there is a fall in gross profit or there is a NIL closing stock at the end of the year the books of accounts cannot be rejected.
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of ITO vs. Tara Chand Jain that the right in land cannot be equated with the land or building. Therefore, it is concluded that section 50C is applicable to transfer of capital asset only in respect of land or building or both and is not applicable to right in land. In the present case
ITAT Chennai held In the case of M/s. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd. vs. DCIT that u/s 57 only expenditure incurred in connection with earning of income was allowable as deduction. The assessee admitted that the entire income is by way of interest from the bank deposits.
ITAT Held in ITO vs Tara Chand Jain that the amendment in sec 50C which inculcates word assessable would have prospective effect from the date of its insertion i.e from 01-10-2009 and would not have retrospective effect on the sale of property before 01-10-2009
ITAT Jaipur held In case of ACIT vs. Shri M.R. Seetharam that it is mandatory that Assessing Officer should furnish the copy of the reasons recorded for initiation of re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 exactly as it is recorded by the Assessing Officer.
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of Seema Singh Beniwal vs. DCIT that there is no restriction that what percentage of the size of flat should be used for residential purposes under the Income Tax Act. It is clarified by the CBDT that purchase of plot of land is a part of residential house for claiming of deduction U/s 54F.
In the case of Allscripts (India) Private Ltd.vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, ITAT Ahemdabad held that for the purpose of find our comparable companies for transfer pricing, companies with very high operating margin can’t be selected as comparable companies without justification/investigation by AO
