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...
Kolkatta High Court held in Navin Kumar Agarwal Vs CIT(A) that for the conclusion of search, date of last panchnama was to be seen provided keys had been handed over to the assessee. If the keys were still with the department it meant that department could resume the search any time if necessary irrespective of the fact that only restraint order was vacated on the latter date.
Gujarat Paguthan Energy Corporation P Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)- For allowing any income based deduction to the assessee, if the assessee had not claimed depreciation and claimed the deduction without claiming depreciation then AO could not forcefully deduct the depreciation from profit & Loss Account.
ITAT Ahmedabad held in Megha Developers Vs ITO that as the assessee had entered into an agreement in which he had to bear all the costs related with the building of the project and also he was having the rights to receive all the payments from the members of the society
ITAT Ahmedabad held in M/s Sun Rise enterprise Vs ACIT that the insertion of clause d to sec 80IB(10) would be applicable from 01-04-2005 i.e the amendment related with built up area of commercial establishments not to exceed more than 5% of total built up area of housing project would have prospective effect not retrospective effect.
ITAT Ahmedabad held in Dhami Brothers Vs DCIT that if the assessee had not maintained any qualitative stock records to justify the sales price of diamonds and closing price of stock then the loss in the books of accounts would not be disallowed if after verification the AO had not found anything adverse about the transactions of the assessee.
ITAT Ahmedabad held in Sohan Builders Vs ACIT that if the AO had assessed the income of the assessee at some higher percentage than what the assessee had already shown in the computation then it would not amount to the concealment of income,
ITAT Ahmedabad held in M/s Anand Food Dairy & products Vs ITO that the deduction u/s 80IB(11A) would be allowed from the initial assessment year i.e A.Y relevant to the previous year in which the business was commenced but not from the A.Y of the incorporation of this provision in the I.T Act i. e not from -01-04-2005.
ITAT Mumbai held in J. Gala Vs DCIT that for levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) revenue has to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, without which penalty could not be levied. Further for giving reasonable opportunity of being heard
ITAT Delhi held in Siem Offshore Inc Vs Dy. DIT (International Taxation) that any payment received (whether in India or outside India) by an assessee who falls within sec 44BB would be taxed as per the provisions contained u/s 44BB. So the reimbursement of expenses would also be taxed u/s 44BB.
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.
