ITAT Ahmedabad held in case of ITO vs. M/s Tirupati Enterprises held that the revenue has to be recognized only at the time when substantial risk and reward are transferred to the buyer by the seller. Since the construction was incomplete, the property was not ready for sale.
In the case of ACIT vs. Smarneev Fashions Pvt. Ltd, ITAT Ahmedabad held that merely because there is a fall in gross profit or there is a NIL closing stock at the end of the year the books of accounts cannot be rejected.
In the case of Allscripts (India) Private Ltd.vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, ITAT Ahemdabad held that for the purpose of find our comparable companies for transfer pricing, companies with very high operating margin can’t be selected as comparable companies without justification/investigation by AO
In the case of M/s Blessing Construction vs. ITO The Ahmedabad Tribunal has held Merely because the Assessing Officer or the ITAT did not consider the evidences to be sufficient for the purpose of explaining the cash credit u/s 68, it will not automatically lead to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
Brief of the case- ITAT Ahmedabad held in the case of Arvind Murjani Brands Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT that As the amount on which tax was deducted at source is not at all chargeable to tax, then the command of section 199 will have to be harmoniously and pragmatically read as providing
In case of JCIT vs. Riddhi Siddhi Gluco Biols Ltd. The Ahmedabad tribunal has held that Interest free funds available with assessee was much more than the interest free loan given by the assessee. A.O made proportionate disallowance merely on the presumption that the proportionate borrowed money must have been utilized for investment in capital work-in-progress. Relying on decision
In the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Vaghasia Associates, ITAT Ahmedabad held that merely because some estimated labour payment was written on the projected profit & loss account, the addition for unexplained expenditure cannot be made.
In case of ACIT vs. M/s. Prasad Machinery Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) assessee was owner of factory building. It allotted certain space therein to its sister concern for enabling it to carry on their business in lieu of charging rent.
In the case of Shri Kaushik B. Patel Vs. D.C.I.T it was held by ITAT Ahmedabad that routine business transactions/salary payments do not fall under the purview of Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. In this case the assessee’s books nowhere treat the sums received as loan and advances to have been received from the said Company.
ITAT Ahmedabad held in M/s Nirmala Developers Vs ITO that it was not necessary to be the owner of the land to claim the deduction u/s 80IB(10). But the necessary condition to claim the deduction u/s 80(IB)10 was that the assessee had borne the all expenses and took all the risk involved in the project.
