ITAT Chandigarh held In the case of M/s Shree Dhanwantri Herbals vs. The ITO that the careful reading of the form 10CCB, in a serial order would clearly show that the assessee is required to inform the location of the Industry and column (c) specifically ask the assessee to state whether business is a new business
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of Nirmal Kumar Bardia vs. DCIT that argument of the assessee that the assessee had disclosed salary received from RMC Gems Thai Co. Ltd., Bangkok voluntarily has not substantiated with any evidence.
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of ACIT vs. Shri Johari Lal Sodhani that the CIT (A) had given various reasons of retraction and also has considered the evidence for not honouring the statement made under section 132(4).
ITAT Delhi held in Ambience Hotel & Resort Pvt. Vs CIT that if the AO had done his assessment ignoring the provisions of the IT act and TPA and ignoring the examinations/inquiry then that assessment was erroneous
ITAT held in Almora Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd Vs ITO that TDS was not required to be deducted when co-operative society pays interest to its members as per sec 194A(3).
Delhi High Court held in CIT Vs DLF Universal Ltd held that If assessee got hundi from its suppliers and get it discounted from the bank ,then the discounting charges paid by the assessee would be treated as a revenue expense;
ITAT held in Envogue Wood Working Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT that if the assessee had taken and repaid the loan in cash and provided the sufficient reasonable cause of doing such then penalty u/s 271D & 271E would not be imposed.
ITAT Delhi held in Executive solutions Pvt Ltd Vs ITO that reasonable opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee as per the principle of natural justice irrespective of the fact the number of times opportunity of being heard had already been given to the assessee.
Public Education Society Vs DDIT (Exemptions) (Bangalore ITAT) Since the expenditure incurred by the assessee was more than 93% of the gross receipts, no part of the gross receipts are liable to be taxed in the year under consideration, as the balance amount was set apart for application in the next year.
Raymond Limited V/s. CCEC (Bombay High Court) The Hon’ble Court is of the opinion that there is no substance in the argument that between 1st March, 2002 to 9th September, 2004 the credit of AED(T&TA) can be used for payment of any of the specified duty referred to in SubRule (1) of Rule 3.
