Shri Ram S Sarda Vs DCIT (ITAT Rajkot)- ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Sudhakar M Shetty vs ACIT held that the department has to adjust the seized amount towards the advance-tax from the date when it was seized and accordingly directed the assessing officer to adjust the seized cash from the date of seizure. In the case under consideration we find that the assessee claimed adjustment of seized cash in the return of income filed by the assessee.
Ankur Cm Food Products (Guj) Ltd vs Dy.CIT (ITAT Rajkot)- Ground No. 2 of appeal of revenue is in respect of deletion of addition of Rs.7,01,1 19 on account of excess stock of packing material. During the course of survey at factory premises empty bags and empty pouches numbers 1,02,98,914 were found against the book stock of 83,39,051. There was excess stock of packing material of 19,59,863 pouches valuing Rs.7,01,1 19. In the statement, Shri Ashok Parekh, director of the company while answering question No. 39 stated that packing material of outside parties for which the assessee is doing job work were also at the factory premises.
Vineetkumar Raghavjibhai Bhalodia vs. ITO (ITAT Rajkot)- HUF is a relative inasmuch as HUF is a collective name given to group consisting of individuals, all of whom are relatives under Explanation to Proviso to section 56(2) of the Act. The ld.AR submitted that the term individual would include a group of individuals, hence, an HUF would be covered by the term individual.
Assessing interest expenses disallowance. Own funds cover interest-free advances. Proportionate disallowance if own funds insufficient. Judicial discipline emphasized.
