In the case of Akansha Ranju Pilani vs. Income Tax officer, (ITAT Mumbai) has held that Only the expenditure/outgoings specified under the relevant head of income and, further, subject to the conditions specified in respect thereof, stand to be allowed in computing the income under that head of income.
In the case of The Commissioner Customs & Central Excise V/s M/s. Panyam Cements & Minerals Industries Ltd. it was held that invoking Section 11A is not mandatory for recovering the wrong refund granted.
In the case of M/s. Kailash Vahan Udyog Ltd. Vs. DCIT Pune Bench of ITAT have held that according to the provisions of section 115JB Explanation 1 Clause (iii) while computing book profit, the amount of loss brought forward (before depreciation) or unabsorbed depreciation
Karnataka High Court held In the case of M/s Kothari Metals vs. ITO that in this case it is clear that the assessee was not provided reasons for re-opening and also the statement recorded by the AO was not available to the assessee.
In the case of INTAS pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. DCIT Ahmedabad Bench of ITAT have held that initiation of proceedings u/s 153A in absence of any incriminating material found in search conducted after finalization of regular assessments is not sustainable.
In the case of Gujarat Industrial Security Force Society v Dy. DIT (Exemption) it was held that the activity related to providing security services whose objective was to provide employment to youth and retired army personnel will not be treated as business activity but an activity which is charitable in nature.
In the case of Friends of WWB India Vs The Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Ahmedabad, it was held that registration u/s 12AA cannot be cancelled under the provision of section 12AA(3) unless the activities of trust are not found in accordance with the provision rather than the trustees.
no addition on account of cash credits be made, where assessee had given PAN of creditors, their confirmation and their bank statement which established their creditability. By following the same judgment, direction issued to AO to delete the addition.
The ITAT Hyderabad in the case of State Bank of Hyderabad vs. DCIT held that the proviso to section 36(1)(vii) applies to bad debts written off relating to rural advances, the same cannot be applied for disallowing deduction claimed on account of write off of bad and doubtful debts relating to non-rural/urban advances.
In the case of The CC&CE V/s M/s. Panyam Cements & Minerals Industries Ltd., Kurnool, it was held by Andhra Pradesh High Court that invoking Section 11A is mandatory for recovering the refund granted pursuant to the adjudication order passed under section 11B which subsequently declared as unsustainable
