Income Tax : ITAT Delhi in DCIT Vs Deepsons Southend held that if there is change in the profit sharing ratio of the partnership and all the pa...
Income Tax : ITAT New Delhi held in ACIT Vs Phonix Lamps India Ltd that if the assessee was selling its final product to particular parties con...
Income Tax : ITAT Chandigarh held in Lakshmi Energy & Foods Products Ltd Vs The ACIT that if the assessee was following mercantile method of ac...
Income Tax : 1.ITAT Mumbai held in the case of Asst. DIT Vs M/s Hongkong and Shanghani Banking Corporation Ltd that the broken period interest...
Income Tax : ITAT held in Acclaris Business Solutions Lvt Ltd. Vs I.T.O that only those companies could be compared for calculating ALP which w...
JCIT Vs M/s Gillander Arbithnot & Co. Ltd (ITAT Kolkata) 1.Assessee would be allowed deduction of payment of employees contribution of ESI and PF if it paid the same before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1). 2. Pooja & Temple expenses would be allowed as a business expenditure because it was related with the harmony of business so business expenditure.
ITAT Bangalore held in Sri Maramma Temple Seva Trust Vs CIT that even if the objective of an organization was both religious and charitable then also registration u/s 12AA could not be denied on the basis that registration could only be granted either to wholly religious
ITAT Chandigarh held in M/s. Ved Parkash Contractors Vs CIT that if the AO had passed brief and cryptic assessment order but had checked and verified all the related documents submitted by the assesse in reply to the questionnaire of the AO
ITAT Pune held in Mrs Sarita Manjeet Singh Chopra Vs ITO that if the assesse had disclosed its unaccounted income filing return u/s 153A only after it was caught in search by the income tax department then that disclosed income through return would be considered as undisclosed income
ITAT Hyderabad held in M/s DQ Entertainment (International) Ltd Vs ACIT that if the effect of expenses has been given in the balance sheet then the upward TP adjustment could not be made because the same had not been charged to P&L account and so same could not be be added to the income of the assessee.
ITAT Jaipur held in DCIT Vs. M/s Ashiana Ispat Ltd that if the facts and circumstances were same in the assesse’s own case of earlier years then, disallowance could not be made if the same was allowed in the earlier years by any appellate authority.
ITO Vs. Shri pardeep Singh Hooda (ITAT Chandigarh) ITAT held that there was no big or unreasonable gap between the amount withdrawn from the bank account and paid for purchase of the property. Since the amount was taken into cashbook after withdrawal from the bank account
ITAT held in ACIT Vs Ms Shyam Basic that if the assessee had made a wrong claim in the return of income but had furnished full particulars in its return of income then it would not amount to concealment if income and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not be levied.
ITAT New Delhi held in Indo Count Industries Ltd Vs DCIT( ITAT New Delhi) that it all depends upon the facts of the case that whether the assesse was eligible to claim exemption u/s 10B for all the units as a single entity or every unit was independently eligible to claim exemption u/s 10B as a separate unit.
ITAT Delhi held in M/s Sundowner offshore International (Bermuda) Ltd Vs ADIT (International Taxation, Dehradun) that for calculating the gross receipts for sec 44BB, reimbursement of service tax not to be included in gross receipts and 10% of the total gross receipts without considering the service tax would be taken as taxable income of the assesse.
