Glen Villiams Vs. ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)- Assesse was a dealer of bakery products, filed its return. During assessment, it was found that assesse represented certain amount towards sundry creditors in its books.
CIT Vs.Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Assesse received interest on inter-coporate deposit which was offered to tax in earlier years. Subsequently, assesse made certain provision for bad debts.
ACIT vs. R.P.G.Credit & Capital Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) – In course of assessment, AO made addition under Section 68 .CIT (A) remanded matter back for obtaining confirmation of creditors. AO gave a remand report that he was satisfied with confirmation given by creditors and loan appeared to be genuine.
JCIT vs. Cybertech Systems & Software P. Ltd.,(ITAT Mumbai) Assesse’s claim for exemption u/s 10B was denied. A.O. also passed a penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) for raising a false claim for exemption. Tribunal found that assesse had not even challenged rejection of claim in appeal.
In the case of Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd. Vs. UOI Assesse’s case for exemption under section 10A was allowed in earlier years by Tribunal. During the relevant year, the Tribunal disallowed assessee claim.
ITAT Mumbai has held in the case of C.R. developments Vs. JCIT that time limit for investment is six months from the date of transfer and even if such investment falls under two financial years, the benefit claimed by the assessee cannot be denied.
ITAT Mumbai has In the case of CIT Vs. Sh. Chandrakant V. Gosalia held that Loan given by Company to its substantial shareholder will attracts provisions of section 2 (22)(e) of Income Tax Act,1961 if the same were not lent in ordinary course of business and mere payment of loan amount would not escape assesse from provision of Section 2 (22)(e).
The ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Haryana Renewable Energy held that recovery of a part of cost from ultimate customers by the society working for funding the projects from government grant being in nature of reimbursements cannot be taxed in the hands of society.
Satish Agarwal vs. DCIT- ITAT Jaipur placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan HC in the case of CIT Vs. Inani Marbles Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 316 ITR 125 (Raj) wherein the court held that in absence of any change in the factual position normally the profit rate declared and accepted in the preceding year constitute a good basis of working out the profits.
In a Historic/Landmark Judgment Delhi High Court in the case Avinash Gupta Vs. UOI has although not allowed extension of due date for filing ITR for AY 2015-16 but instructed the Govt. to ensure availability of forms for tax audit from the beginning of next assessment year.
