The ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Ranpariya Solanki Sukhadiya Parivar Trust vs. CIT(Exemption) held that the application made u/s 12AA cannot be rejected even a trust’s object is to function in the interest of a particular community
ITAT Ahmadabad held In the case of Adani Port & Special Economic Zone Ltd. vs. ACIT that two circumstances must exist to enable the Commissioner to exercise power of revision u/s 263, namely (i) the order is erroneous
ITAT Ahmadabad held In the case of ACIT vs. Shri Kanakkumar J. Jariwala that mere valuation report is not sufficient to conclude that the assessee has made unexplained investment. From perusal of the assessment
ITAT Ahmadabad held In the case of ACIT vs. M/s. Vipan Industries that where there are records available to show that the excess stock found during the survey not belong to the assessee but infact was of the other party who has taken said premises on lease, addition is not justified.
ITAT Ahmadabad held In the case of Mukesh Ashmal Bokadia vs. ITO that AO is not justified to make addition on account of purchases as this is not the situation because books of account have not been fully rejected, none of the parties has previously been proved as bogus
In case of Gujarat Energy Transmission Corpn. Ltd vs. ACIT, assessee-company the company has provided certain sum towards employees cost for arrears payable upto 31st March, 2008 . It debited said sum in respect of 6 th Pay Commission arrears
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of UTI Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT that we find that the assessee’s interest free deposits exceed its tax free investment in current year as well as in succeeding assessment year 2003-04. The tribunal and hon’ble jurisdictional high court deleted an identical section 14A disallowance based on the very presumption.
ITAT Ahmedabad held in the case Kurian Ulahannan Moothukuzhiyil vs. ITO that in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. in ITA 160/2015 & ITA 161/2015 dated 26/08/2015, it was held that there is one thing common to both the provisions to Section 40(a) (ia) and Section 201 (1) is that the as long as the payee has filed its return of income disclosing the payment received by and in which the income earned by it is embedded and has also paid tax on such income, the Assessee would not be treated as a person in default.
In the case of ACIT Vs. Shri JugalKishore K. Agrawal, ITAT Ahmedabad on the basis of revenue observation and after going thought the case file, held that if there is no nexus between the interest income earned and interest paid, then interest paid cannot be allowed within preview of section 57(iii).
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of Lubrizol Advanced Materials India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that after the retrospective amendment to the second proviso to section 92C (2) by the Finance Act, 2012, there remains no ambiguity that the benefit of tolerance margin is available only when the variation
