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).
ACIT Vs Hiren Jaswantrai Shah (ITAT Ahmedabad)- Derivative transactions carried out through stock exchanges from 1 April 2005 to 25 January 2006, which are recognised by the notification issued by the CBDT on 25 January 2006, would be eligible for being treated as non-speculative transactions within the meaning of clause (d) of proviso to s 43(5) and, accordingly, are available for set-off against regular business income.
ITO v. Bhavesh Prints (P.) Ltd. (ITAT Ahemdabad)- In the present case the finding given by the Assessing Officer is that certain parties are not traceable or that such amount is not outstanding in the books of these parties against the assessee. It would mean according to ld. DR that liability has ceased to exist. But this is not the event which has taken place during this year nor is visualized in section 41(1).
ITO v. Parag Mahasukhlal Shah (ITAT Ahemdabad) If a payment is compensatory in nature and not related to any deposit/debt/loan, then such a payment is out of the ambits of the provisions of section 194A of the Income-tax Act. To buttress this legal proposition, we hereby placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Nirma Industries Ltd. (supra), wherein the question was the admissibility of deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Income-tax Act in respect of interest received from trade debtors.
Kem Tron Technology (P) Ltd. v CIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) – As the assessee’s major sales in international market related to associate enterprise section 93E was applicable and a report in Form 3CEB was duly filed along with the return of income by the assessee. The A.O. invoking the provisions of section 92C(3) of the Act made addition of Rs.19,72,697 by making upward adjustment in international transaction with the associate enterprise on the ground that similarly placed companies had better margins as compared to the assessee company. While doing so, the A.O. took the net profit of the assessee company at (-) 3.21% instead of 3.26% shown by the assessee, excluding the other income of Rs.80,28,677 from net profit declared by the assessee.
ACIT v Mehsana District Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd(Ahemdabad ITAT)- Once the depreciation allowable under s 32(1) cannot be allowed or partly allowed, the unabsorbed portion of such depreciation automatically becomes the depreciation of the subsequent year, subject to the provisions of s 72(2) and 73(3. The carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation, as per s 32(2), is automatic and the assessee is not required to fulfil any condition so as to be entitled to obtain such carry forward.
Bisazza India (P) Ltd. v CIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) – We feel the restriction contained in section 80AB or section 80B(5) could not be applied in as much as carry forward of business loss or depreciation should not be first set-off leaving gross total income nil, which disentitles the assessee for deduction under other provisions of Chapter VIA-C which includes section 80HHC also. But assessees’ contention that export profit has to be computed with reference to the profit and loss account prepared under the Companies Act is equally unacceptable because there is no such provision in section 80HHC to determine export profit with reference to Profit and loss account maintained under the Companies Act.
Meredith Traders (P) Ltd. v ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- Provisions of s 79 are not applicable to company originally registered as a private company and then became a public company by virtue of the provisions of s 3(iv)(c) of the Companies Act in which public are substantially interested within the meaning of s 2(18) of the Income tax Act, 1961
Dy. CIT v Niten Hasmukhbhai Shah (ITAT Ahemdabad)- Since the finding of Ld. CIT(A) that there was no oral or written contract with the assessee and the Roopal Roadways which is confirmed by the clarificatory certificate issued by Roopal Roadways, was not disputed by the Revenue at the time of hearing before us, we find no infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) holding that provision of section 194C(3) of the Act are not applicable in this case and consequently no addition u/s 40(a)(ia) can be made.
Shantaben Karshanbhai Patel v Dy. CIT (ITAT Ahemdabad) – Merely because the AO passed the order u/s 154 of the IT Act would not make it appealable before the learned CIT(A) u/s 246A of the IT Act. The claim of interest simpliciter is not appeallable order before the learned CIT(A) as per section 246A of the IT Act. The crux of the matter shall have be seen in entirety and quoting wrong provisions of law would make it appeallable order before the learned CIT(A). The provisions of section 244A (2) are specific and on such a matter on issue the point shall have to be decided by the CCIT or CIT whose decision thereof shall be final. Accordingly, we are of the view that appeal of the assessee is not maintainable in the present form. The same is dismissed. However, the assessee is at liberty to agitate the issue before the concerned CCIT/CIT in accordance with law. The learned CCIT or CIT concerned shall decide the issue on such agitation by the assessee in accordance with law.
