In the case of Asst Shri Ashokkumar Bhailal v Income Tax Officer, ITAT Ahmedabad has held that addition made on basis of witness statements, without giving assessee an opportunity to cross examine the witness and without collaborating other independent evidence is not sustainable in law.
In the case of INTAS pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. DCIT Ahmedabad Bench of ITAT have held that initiation of proceedings u/s 153A in absence of any incriminating material found in search conducted after finalization of regular assessments is not sustainable.
In the case of Gujarat Industrial Security Force Society v Dy. DIT (Exemption) it was held that the activity related to providing security services whose objective was to provide employment to youth and retired army personnel will not be treated as business activity but an activity which is charitable in nature.
In the case of Friends of WWB India Vs The Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Ahmedabad, it was held that registration u/s 12AA cannot be cancelled under the provision of section 12AA(3) unless the activities of trust are not found in accordance with the provision rather than the trustees.
no addition on account of cash credits be made, where assessee had given PAN of creditors, their confirmation and their bank statement which established their creditability. By following the same judgment, direction issued to AO to delete the addition.
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of M/s Indu Nissan Oxo Chemical Inds. Ltd. vs. DCIT that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TRF Ltd. vs. CIT reported at (2010) 323 ITR 397(SC) has held that this position in law is well-settled. After 1st April, 1989
In this case ITAT examined that whether Arm’s Length Price (ALP) adjustments will also be warranted in case of interest free loans extended as quasi capital and what are the connotations of expression ‘quasi capital’ in the context of the transfer pricing legislation.
The condition precedent for exercising the revisional power under section 263 of the Act is that the order under revision should not only be erroneous, but such erroneous order should result in prejudice to the interests of the Revenue.
On this undisclosed income, A.O. vide penalty order, levied penalty of Rs.2.5 crore u/s 271AAA mainly for the reason of non disclosure of the particulars of income in the statement filed u/s 132(4) by the assessee.
Document found during search was a third party document which was neither in the handwriting of the assessee nor bears her signature. Its inference has to be taken as stated by the person who possessed the document.
