DCIT vs. Smt. Suman Jagannath Pharande (ITAT Pune) For the contention of inclusion of Canopy area in total built area, the ITAT held that built up area means the inner measurement of the residential unit at the floor level, including the projection and balconies, as increased by the thickness of the walls but does not include the common area shared with other residential units.
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.
CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (Delhi High Court -Full Bench) [2002] 256 ITR 1/123- When a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of section 143 (3) of the Act, a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind.
VAT collected by the assessee was in respect of traded goods dealt in by the assessee and in view of the provisions of section 145A of the Act, the value of the VAT was to be included as part of sale consideration of the traded goods and once the same is to be included as part of the sale goods
CIT vs. M/s. Pentasoft Technologies Ltd. (Madras High Court)- In order to allow a claim under Section 10A of the Act, what all is to be seen is whether such benefit earned by the assessee was derived by virtue of export made by the assessee.
To ascertain whether the turnover would also include sale proceeds from scrap, one has to know the meaning of the term ‘turnover’. The term ‘turnover’ has neither been defined in the Act nor has been explained by any of the CBDT circulars.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Coperion Ideal Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT that the mere fact that there was a judgment of the Supreme Court of 1997 which was not noticed by the AO when he framed the original assessment cannot per se constitute the only material on the basis of which the assessment could have been reopened.
In the case of ACIT Vs. Dr. Nitin Laxmikant Lad Pune Bench of ITAT have held that where assessee had furnished original return of income in which he had not declared its receipts from the profession, but pursuant to the search and seizure operation, certain incriminating documents were seized
Delhi High Court held In the case of Hamdard Laboratories India and Anr vs. ADIT (E) & DGIT (E) that Hamdard‟s objects are charitable in nature and its activities relating to manufacture and sale of unani medicines
