In the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Vaghasia Associates, ITAT Ahmedabad held that merely because some estimated labour payment was written on the projected profit & loss account, the addition for unexplained expenditure cannot be made.
In case of ACIT vs. M/s. Prasad Machinery Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) assessee was owner of factory building. It allotted certain space therein to its sister concern for enabling it to carry on their business in lieu of charging rent.
In case of M/s. AT & T Global Business Services India Pvt.Ltd. VS. ITO , assessee-company, engaged in business of software development and providing application services to its AE. TPO on basis of mean margin earned by his own set of comparables
In the case of Shri Kaushik B. Patel Vs. D.C.I.T it was held by ITAT Ahmedabad that routine business transactions/salary payments do not fall under the purview of Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. In this case the assessee’s books nowhere treat the sums received as loan and advances to have been received from the said Company.
ITAT Mumbai held in J. Gala Vs DCIT that for levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) revenue has to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, without which penalty could not be levied. Further for giving reasonable opportunity of being heard
ITAT Delhi held in Siem Offshore Inc Vs Dy. DIT (International Taxation) that any payment received (whether in India or outside India) by an assessee who falls within sec 44BB would be taxed as per the provisions contained u/s 44BB. So the reimbursement of expenses would also be taxed u/s 44BB.
ITAT Ahmedabad held in M/s Nirmala Developers Vs ITO that it was not necessary to be the owner of the land to claim the deduction u/s 80IB(10). But the necessary condition to claim the deduction u/s 80(IB)10 was that the assessee had borne the all expenses and took all the risk involved in the project.
ITAT Kolkatta held in Swew Benefit Company Vs DCIT that for disallowing expenses u/s 14A i.e expense incurred for non-taxable income, there had to be some logical strong basis like rule 8D or something else but it could not be disallowed on ad-hoc basis.
ITAT Ahmedabad held in ACIT Vs Amrapali Capital & Financial services Ltd that if the assessee had by mistake wrongly computed its computation of income because of unawareness of the law and he had not revised it return within the time mentioned u/s 139(5)
In the case of Govats Foundation v ITO (Exemption) it is held by ITAT-Hyderabad that the approval u/s 80G(5) could be granted to charitable institution if the certificate granted u/s 12A has not been withdrawn.
