The ITAT directed the ld. AO directed to consider only those investments which had actually yielded exempt income during the year while working out the disallowance under third limb of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules.
Additional depreciation on purchase of raw material and making packing material was manufacture as the final product was a commercially, physically and chemically different and a very important factor that the assessee had been consistently regarded as manufacture by various Government Department and Agencies.
ITAT Kolkata held that as per board’s instruction CBDT circular 1/2011 dated 31.01.2011, in the case of non-corporate assessee in non-metro cities, the ITR filed upto Rs. 15 lacs has to be assessed by ITO and therefore in the instant case the assessment is framed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in is void, ultra vires and nullity in the eyes of law.
ITAT Kolkata held that income from sale transaction of impugned land property by applying provisions of section 45(2) of the Income Tax Act should be done after obtaining the pending valuation report from DVO to arrive at fair market value as on the date of conversion.
SC held that the provisions of section 43B would not apply to the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of employees contribution.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee duly furnished details like PAN, sub-contract amount and details of TDS justifying payment to sub-contractors. Merely disallowing 10% of sub-contract expense without verifying the veracity of assessee’s claim based on the evidences produced is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of payment towards PF and ESI contributions, under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) when payment made well before due date of filing Income Tax Return u/s 139(1) is unsustainable even if reported by the auditor in tax audit report.
ITAT Mumbai held that exemption under section 54 for the amount invested towards the purchase of new residential property under consideration up to the date of filing of belated return under section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that compensation received in respect of award/ agreement under Section 96 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is not taxable under Income Tax Act, 1961.
ITAT Mumbai held that interest earned from FDR is taxable under section 57 under the taxable head Income from other sources and not under business income.
