In the case of Abhishek Cotspin Mills Ltd. v ACIT it is held by ITAT Pune that whenever the Assessee declares the returned income which is higher than the actual Asseessed Income, then interest would be charged under section 234C on the assessed Income and In case assessed income is higher than returned Income Than such Interest will be charged on returned Income.
In the case of Masud Ahmed Qureshi v ITO it was held by ITAT Pune that whenever, there is a dispute regarding the valuation u/s 50C, it would be better to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer so that the proper report could be furnished regarding it.
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of Integrated Decisions and Systems (India) Private Limited vs. ITO that these risk adjustments are only theoretically which cannot be quantified in terms of any calculation to conclude the exact adjustment in ALP.
The assessee is engaged in manufacturing of plywood where imported timber is being used. During the relevant previous year assessee has imported wood logs from outside India. Assessee has made payment of Rs.32,46,905/- to the exporter on its sale these woods to the assessee on F.O.R. basis.
Prima-facie, according to the provisions of section 194C r.w. definition given of “work” under the explanation to section 194C, the case of the assessee has to be accepted that assessee could be under bonafide belief for non-deduction of tax from the type of payments upon which it has been held that assessee is liable to deduct tax at source.
In the case of Pune District Security Guards Board vs CIT, ITAT Pune held that welfare bodies formed under Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 were eligible for registration under section 12AA even though they charge fee for their services.
In the case of Xerces Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, ITAT Pune held that assessee to prove the identity of the creditors, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. Mere furnishing of the particulars is not enough.
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) is covered by the exception Rule 6DD(b) of the IT Rules and as such no dis allowance under section 40A(3) of the Act can be made. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
In the case of M/s Sharma East India Hospitals & Medical Research Ltd vs. DCIT, ITAT Jaipur held that disallowance out of unverifiable purchases may be restricted to 15% following the consolidated order in the cases of Sh. Anuj Kumar Varshney and ors. Vs. ITO, ITA No. 187/JP/2012
ITAT held in ITO Vs General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd that the incentive offered by the BSNL to its franchisee was in the nature of trade discount not in the nature of commission because after the payment made by the franchisee to the BSNL all risks and rewards relate to the franchisee.
