The ITAT Lucknow in the case of Sharad Mishra vs. ITO held that the arrival of assessee in India at night cannot be treated as his stay for the complete day. Thus, the actual hours of the day stayed only could be counted as stay in India on that day.
ITAT Lucknow in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Northern Tannery held that The commission paid to the non- resident agent for procuring order and recovering payments on the behalf of assessee could not be treated
In the case of ACIT vs M/s.Goel Investments Ltd., ITAT Lucknow affirmed the earlier order of ITAT in a similar case of the same assessee that once provisions of section 14A of the IT Act are to be invoked, the disallowance is to be computed as per rule 8D of the IT rules.
In the cited case, ITAT inter-alia held that merely because prices of land has gone up, rent cannot be increased particularly to persons covered u/s 40A(2)(b) of the I.T Act without looking into agreement in respect of rent for the earlier years and for the present year
In the case of DCIT vs. M/s Jindal Photo Limited in I.T.A. No. 814/Del/2011, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal has also expressed similar view, in which it has been held that satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is pre-requisite to invoke the provisions of Rule 8D.
The Hon’ble Tribunal held that the DVO has estimated the cost of investment at Rs.3,58,39,100/- against the cost of investment declared by the assessee at Rs.3,47,12,678/-. Therefore, the difference is about 3.24% and for this minor difference, no addition is called for. Since the difference is very nominal, no addition is called for in this regard.
Sponsorship charges incurred by the assessee company on study of daughter of the Director of the company abroad was not held to be of Personal Nature in view of the fact that study was sponsored by the assessee-company for its business exigency. Moreover she, being a Deputy General Manager of the assessee company, has entered into an agreement with the assessee company to serve the company for at-least five years post completion of studies abroad.
It was held that it is undisputed fact that the ‘Jorhar Unit’ of the assessee did not function at all in the present year and its assets although part of block of assets are identifiable and therefore as per provision of section 38(2) of the Act, depreciation is not allowable because assets of this unit were not used for business purposes in the present year.
Whether profit % can be applied on estimate basis if books of accounts are rejected, without reference to earlier year’s profit % where books were accounts were not rejected or whether the Assessing Officer is justified in Assessing the profit at a rate higher than earlier year in which profit was assessed by Assessing officer without specifying the reason for the same?
Protective assessment made by the Assessing Officer in the present case cannot be sustained because substantive addition has been made in the hands of IBN-18 Broadcast and therefore, if any addition is made in the present case, it will amount to double addition.
