ITAT Mumbai held In the case of M/s Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT that a careful perusal of provisions of sec. 132(4) as well sec. 292C would show that the said provisions state that the statement taken u/s 132(4) “may be used in evidence in any proceeding under the Act”.
The ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Waves Food Private Limited vs. DCIT held that reopening of assessment to disallow provision for damaged goods returned is not valid as the issue had been specifically dealt by AO during the course of regular assessment and such disallowance by reopening
ITAT held in Sumitomo Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT that if the case of assessee was decided in the earlier assessment years and if the facts and circumstances were same as in the previous years ,then in the current year also same basis for assessment should be adopted.
The Petitioner is carrying on business of fabrication and erection of plants, structures etc. The Petitioner undertakes the projects on turn key basis as well as on work contract basis. The Petitioner has been registered as an assessee with the Service Tax Department since 2008.
The CESTAT Ahmedabad in the case of M/s Quippo Energy Private Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CE & ST held that the activities carried on by the assessee on imported gensets results into existence of a more functional & operational product catering the needs of industrial consumers
ITAT-Ahmedabad In the case of M/s Shiv Associates v DCIT quashed the notice u/s 153C relying on the Judgment of the similar case related to the assessee in which the notices u/s 153C were quashed as no satisfaction was recorded by the AO.
ITAT Kolkata held in case of ITO v Smt. Gayatri Chakroborty that where the transactions are mutual in nature or there is benefit or no benefit to each other, then these kind of transactions will not come under the purview of section 2(22)(e).
ITAT Mumbai held in the case of DCIT v. Rama Capital and Financial Services Ltd. that without any substantive ground reopening cannot be done on the basis of change of opinion. It Further held that without any supporting material, the A.O. cannot substitute market value.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of DCIT v. The Indian Hotels Co. Pvt. Ltd. that principle of consistency should be followed when there were similar issues and the similar principal was laid down in the case of Assessee’s Sister Concern.
In the Case of the Dasrathbhai Narandas Patel v ITO, ITAT-Ahmedabad held that the assessment Proceedings are completely different from Penalty Proceedings and before initiating the penalty proceedings there should be some convincing and corroborative evidence.
