Bhujbal Brothers Construction Company V/s. DCIT (ITAT Pune) Deduction u/s. 80I1B(10) on housing project at Damodar Residency has been denied primarily on two counts(i) the area of the housing project is less than 1 acre, and (ii) the land on which the housing project has been developed does not belong to the assessee.
M. Natarjan Vs. DCIT (ITAT, Chennai) Addition on behalf of undisclosed income of various amounts has been made against the assessee. Before ITAT assessee raised additional ground that addition was made before approval of concerned authorities prescribed u/s 158BG and hence invalid.
ACIT vs. Rahul Pancholi (ITAT Jaipur) AO find decline in gross profit rate in current year in comparison to previous year. On examination of books of account AO found discrepancies in accounts. He made additions after rejecting books of account u/s 145 (3).
In the case of Bhavya Anant Udeshi Vs ITO (International Taxation) it was held by ITAT Hyderabad that provision of section 50C being a deeming provision, it cannot be used for the purpose of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) unless it is proved that Assessee has received any amount over
ITAT Ahmedabad has held in the case ITO v Someshwar Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. that the TDS would be deducted u/s 194C only when the amount of single contract exceeds Rs. 20,000 or the amount exceeds Rs. 50,000 in aggregate which has been given to a particular person in a year.
ITAT Chandigarh held In the case of DCIT vs. M/s Indo Soviet Friendship that the Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record as to how he has given his finding that the cars have been purchased for the benefit of the Chairman.
ITAT Delhi has held in the case of ITO, TDS vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd that services rendered does not qualify as FTS for technical services under the India Finland Tax Treaty if service provider has not made available to assessee any technical knowledge skill
In the case of Ms. Chaurasia & Sons. Vs. I.T.O the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that mere confirmation of addition will not lead to conclusion that penalty is leviable, unless it is established that assessee has concealed its income.
Glen Villiams Vs. ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)- Assesse was a dealer of bakery products, filed its return. During assessment, it was found that assesse represented certain amount towards sundry creditors in its books.
ACIT vs. R.P.G.Credit & Capital Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) – In course of assessment, AO made addition under Section 68 .CIT (A) remanded matter back for obtaining confirmation of creditors. AO gave a remand report that he was satisfied with confirmation given by creditors and loan appeared to be genuine.
