ITAT held in Almora Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd Vs ITO that TDS was not required to be deducted when co-operative society pays interest to its members as per sec 194A(3).
ITAT held in Envogue Wood Working Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT that if the assessee had taken and repaid the loan in cash and provided the sufficient reasonable cause of doing such then penalty u/s 271D & 271E would not be imposed.
ITAT Delhi held in Executive solutions Pvt Ltd Vs ITO that reasonable opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee as per the principle of natural justice irrespective of the fact the number of times opportunity of being heard had already been given to the assessee.
Public Education Society Vs DDIT (Exemptions) (Bangalore ITAT) Since the expenditure incurred by the assessee was more than 93% of the gross receipts, no part of the gross receipts are liable to be taxed in the year under consideration, as the balance amount was set apart for application in the next year.
In the case of CCE V/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. it was held by Goa High Court held that the any expenditure incurred in the manufacturing activity would be entitled for credit facility and hence the expenses of mobile phones incurred in connection with manufacturing process shall be allowed.
ITAT Chennai held In the case of ACIT vs. Sh. R. Paneerselvam (Individual) that normally, the sale price mentioned in the menu card would be the sale price of the liquor. However, the fact is that the liquor shops are giving discount on the liquor sold to their corporate guests, walk in customers, etc. for various reasons.
In A.C.I.T. vs. Kiran Industries Pvt Ltd, the Ahmedabad Tribunal following its co-ordinate bench decision and relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court (T&AP) held that excise duty component need not to be included in valuation of inventory if the assessee is following exclusive method of accounting.
ITAT Mumbai has held in the case of Hasmukh N. Gala vs. ITO that Giving advance to builder constitutes ‘purchase’ of new house even if construction is not completed and title to the property has not passed to the assessee within the prescribed period.
ITAT Hyderabad held In the case of VITP Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT that as per sub-rule (4) of Rule 18C of Income Tax Rules, it is clear that on approval by the central govt., CBDT is only required to notify the industrial park for benefit u/s 80IA (4)(iii).
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of Shri Isharbhai Chotabhai Patel Vs. CIT that ld. Commissioner not justified in interfering in the discretion exercised by the AO without any plausible reason. The estimated opinion formed by the AO can only be interfered
