M/s Vels Institute of Science Technology & Advanced Studies Vs. DDIT (E)- ITAT Chennai- Section 13(1)(a) says that if any part of the property or income of the Trust is given to the interested person without either adequate security or adequate interest
Delhi High Court held In the case of Principal CIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. that this is basic requirement of law u/s 147 that before reopening of assessment, AO must have apply his mind to the available materials
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. M/s Escorts Ltd. that in view of the nature of the conduct displayed by Sh. Gupta, i.e. preferring an application for intervention which was rejected, being Intervener Application No. 5779/2008
Supreme Court held In the case of M/s. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. CIT that Act does not clothe the taxing authorities with any power or jurisdiction to re-write the terms of the agreement arrived at between the parties with each other at arm’s length
Delhi High Court held In the case of Vodafone South Ltd. vs. CIT that the netting of the interest paid on the borrowed sum against the interest income earned is allowed. There was a direct nexus between the earning of interest on the loan advanced by the Assessee and payment of interest to the bank.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Consultating Engineering Services (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT that for reassessment as per first proviso of section 147, it is pre- condition that the assessee has not made a full and true disclosure of the material particulars necessary for the assessment.
ACIT Vs. Sri Sandip Somany (ITAT Kolkata)- We find that the assessee being a Joint Managing Director of M/s Hindustan Sanitary Ware and Industries Ltd was in receipt of commission based on net profits of the company determined and finalized in the subsequent year
Mr.Vinod D Motiwala Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- AO has considered the fact that the assessee did not carry on any agricultural activity. In our view, the absence of agricultural activity cannot be considered to be the sole ground to determine the intention of the assessee.
JCIT vs Smt. Armeda K. Bhaya 95 ITD 313 (Mum.) Section 54 Benefit cannot be reduced proportionately merely because in the Purchase or Sell deed of Property Purchased or Sold name of a Family Member incorporated as co-owner for the sake of convenience
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 Shri pardeep Singh Hooda (ITAT Chandigarh) ITAT held that there was no big or unreasonable gap between the amount withdrawn from the bank account and paid for purchase of the property.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
