DCIT, Baroda Vs Liberty Phosphate (ITAT Ahemdabad)- It was not in dispute that in respect of an another building at Udaipur, this assessee itself has capitalised the expenditure. However, the impugned repairs were in respect of an another factory building situated at F-227, Mewar Industrial Area Udaipur, wherein the company has carried out manufacturing of Fertiliser; namely, Single Super Phosphate. One of the ingredients of the said fertiliser is stated to be sulphuric acid.
Jethiben K Patel Discretionary Trust Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)- In the case of Mohanlal N. Shah (HUF)- Vs- ACIT reported in [2008] 26 SOT 380 (Mum) wherein it was held that as per section 48, option is with the assessee to or not to avail of benefit of indexation for computation of capital gains on transfer of long- term capital asset.
Anjani Synthetics Ltd Vs Dy CIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)- The assessee’s Counsel did not dispute the Directors’ Report which states that the installed capacity of current and previous year is not ascertainable. It would, therefore, show that the management was aware of the fact that the installed capacity has not been enhanced even if some plant and machinery were purchased.
Shri Prashant H Shah Vs ACIT (Ahmedabad ITAT)- It is further important to mention that vide an amendment with effect from 1/6/2007 an individual or HUF have also been inducted vide sub-clause (k) in section 194C(1) of the IT Act. At this juncture, it is worth to hold that as far as the AY in hand is concerned, i.e. AY 2007-08, this latest amendment of section 194C(1)(k) of the Act being introduced with effect from 01/06/2007 has no applicability.
Regent Granito India Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)- Dis allowance for the discount offered against defective materials supplied can not be sustained- In the present case, the A.O. has merely doubted that the assessee is writing off the amount and giving credit to the customers to reduce its profit but the A.O. could not corroborate the same by bringing on record at least some corroborative evidence. It is also to be noted that it is not a case of allowing discount simplicitor. Discounts were allowed on account of breakage or defects in quality.
ITO Vs Gay Loard Industries Ltd (Ahmedabad ITAT)- Once the existence of the investor is proved, there is no further burden on the assessee to prove whether that person itself has invested the said money or some other person has made investment in the name of that person. Thus majority of the courts are of the View that once the shareholders are identified, no addition can be made for unexplained share capital.
ACIT Vs M/s Yug Corporation (ITAT Ahemdabad)- The learned Counsel for the assessee referred to the terms of the development agreements and the agreement to sell (copies filed on record) with both the societies, according to which the responsibilities of the assessee have been analyzed in such manner that planning, sanction of plan, work of construction, development of the property, engagement of labourers etc. have to be done by the assessee. It was also provided that the assessee would receive the entire sale consideration of the housing units and the assessee shall be entitled to accept the payments from the members/buyers.
ITO Vs M/s Universal Associates (ITAT Ahemedabad)- Considering the facts of the case in the light of the above decisions, we are of the view that the at least the assessee has been able to explain reasonable cause for failure to comply with the provisions of law. The ex-partners have introduced their capital in the assessee firm and on retirement they were given their amount back through bearer cheques and, therefore, the assessee is able to prove that it had reasonable cause for failure to comply with the provisions of law.
Sanjay S. Shah Vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)- The fact that the assessee got credit of TDS u/s 154 proceedings in fact goes against the assessee. When the assessee received TDS in respect of some FDRs, and not in respect of other FDRs as claimed by him, he should have obtained the duplicate certificates and should have filed them with the return of income showing total interest received by him. Instead, he chose not to show the interest income to the extent of Rs.2,11,172/-.
Transpek Si-lox Industry Ltd Vs Dy. CIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)- Mistake apparent from record must be obviously and patent and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record as held by Honourable Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers, 82 ITR 50 (SC).
