ITAT Pune held In the case of M/s. Vishay Components India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT that where the revenue from year to year has accepted the method adopted by the assessee for benchmarking its international transactions with its associate enterprises, in the absence of any reasons brought
Rights and liabilities of erstwhile company were transferred to new company, therefore, it was essential to move an application for filing on record the amended memo of parties and also to file a fresh Form 36, mentioning the amalgamation of the assessee company with new company to peruse appeals in the name of new entity. Since assessee despite directions given by the Bench, failed to file amended Form 36, Bench was left with no option but to dismiss the appeals.
In the case of DCIT vs. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customer by using material purchased from a person other than such customer is not included in the definition of the “Work”
In the case of Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust Vs The Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Hoshiarpur , the assessee being a trust was registered under the Punjab Towns Improvement Trusts Act, 1922. It was providing services under the control and supervision of State Government for development of cities and towns.
In the cited case, ITAT held that the Assessing Officer does not have power to embark upon the fresh enquiry with regard to the entries made in the books of accounts of the Company when the accounts of an assessee Company is prepared in terms of Part II Schedule VI
In the case of M/s Blessing Construction vs. ITO The Ahmedabad Tribunal has held Merely because the Assessing Officer or the ITAT did not consider the evidences to be sufficient for the purpose of explaining the cash credit u/s 68, it will not automatically lead to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
Brief of the case- ITAT Ahmedabad held in the case of Arvind Murjani Brands Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT that As the amount on which tax was deducted at source is not at all chargeable to tax, then the command of section 199 will have to be harmoniously and pragmatically read as providing
In the case of Smt. C. Vijay Kumari vs.ITO the Hyderabad ITAT has held that addition made by AO to the total income of the assessee on account of profit arising from sale of agricultural land treating the same as business income instead of capital gains claimed by the assessee as exempt
In case of JCIT vs. Riddhi Siddhi Gluco Biols Ltd. The Ahmedabad tribunal has held that Interest free funds available with assessee was much more than the interest free loan given by the assessee. A.O made proportionate disallowance merely on the presumption that the proportionate borrowed money must have been utilized for investment in capital work-in-progress. Relying on decision
In case of ITO VS. M/s.Testree Solutions Pvt. Ltd, ITAT Bangalore held that the export proceeds received after the expiry of the period of six months from the end of the relevant previous year was to be allowed as a deduction u/s 10A .
