The ITAT Mumbai disposing off miscellaneous application of ICAI held that the observations made by ITAT were not offensive, thus, cannot be deleted in totality. The same has been misunderstood by ICAI and ,therefore, modified suitably to ensure that the clear message that there is a need of improvement in the overall design of CA course
In the case of DCIT Vs. Raj Kumar Saraogi the Kolkata ITAT held that comparison with the items of jewellery found at the time of search with wealth tax return, which were filed much earlier was putting an onerous task on assessee to prove something impossible
High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Rakesh Mahajan that the income or profits as ascertained and determined by the assessee himself cannot always be accepted as correct because it is the duty of the A.O. to consider whether the books disclose the true state of accounts and whether the correct
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied only in the cases of concealment of income in the return of income filed by the assessee. In the present case, the return filed in response to notice u/s 153A was accepted by the AO as it is which also included surrendered income not disclosed in the original return due to bonafide error.
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of ITO vs. M/s Bharat Agro Industries that section 69 comes into operation only if investments are not recorded in the books of account maintained by the assessee which is not the case looking to the facts of the assessee wherein the bank balances are shown in the audited balance sheet
Supreme Court held In the case of Modern Hotels v CCE that the amount paid for the renewal of licence under Foreign Liquor Rules under the Amnesty scheme will be treated as an adjustment toward interest.
Supreme Court has held in the case of CCE v M/s Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd. of India held that the surrendering of advance licence in order to receive the products at lower rate will be considered as “additional consideration” under section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944.
Supreme Court held In the case of CCE v. Hindustan Unilever that Vaseline intensive Care Heel Guard is a medicament as it is produced under the Drug Licence and also before classifying any particular product the dominant function have to be considered.
In the case of Venture Pvt.Ltd vs. DCIT, ITAT Mumbai has held that (1) the Net profit shown in the Profit and loss account should be adjusted with the items given in Notes to accounts, meaning thereby,
ITAT Kolkata held In the case of Sri Som Dutt v ACIT that whenever, the money has been received from overseas, then the onus is on the Assessee to prove that all the transactions are bonafide when he is claiming that the amount has been received as Capital Receipt.
