In the case of ACIT Vs. Shri JugalKishore K. Agrawal, ITAT Ahmedabad on the basis of revenue observation and after going thought the case file, held that if there is no nexus between the interest income earned and interest paid, then interest paid cannot be allowed within preview of section 57(iii).
CIT vs. Pritam Das Narang (Delhi High Court) – Amount received by prospective employee for loss of employment offer is a capital receipt and is neither taxable as salary and nor as Income From other sources.
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of Balbir Singh vs, ACIT that it is not open for the AO to make addition on estimation basis without verifying that said expenses are genuine or not. Mere fact that payments were made in cash on self made vouchers
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of Lubrizol Advanced Materials India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that after the retrospective amendment to the second proviso to section 92C (2) by the Finance Act, 2012, there remains no ambiguity that the benefit of tolerance margin is available only when the variation
Calcutta High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Shri Shyamal Sarkar that there is a presumption in law that all official and judicial acts were regularly performed. In this case, this presumption is supported by the fact that the assessee had paid the fees of the auditor.
Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Edward Keventer (Successors) Private Limited held that factors like intention of the assessee in purchasing the property, duration of time property was kept by assessee, lack of any transactions of sale or purchase of property throughout relevant period of time
Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court), ITA 83/2003, Dated-09.10.2015 Claim that notional interest on funds placed by the s. 10A eligible unit with the H.O. is allowable as a deduction to the H.O. and is exempt in the hands of the s. 10A unit is an unsustainable view.
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.
