ITAT Ahmedabad held that assessee was engaged in business of leasing out its house properties to earn rent, income so earned as rent should be treated as business income, and not as income from house property.
ITAT Chennai held that addition towards unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as source for purchase of property duly established with necessary evidences.
ITAT Chennai held that the scope of assessment after search u/s.153A of the Income Tax Act would be limited to the incriminating material/evidence found during the course of search.
Gujarat High Court held that in absence of adequacy of reasons and its relevancy thereof, initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is erroneous and hence liable to be set aside.
ITAT Bangalore held that the loss arising in eligible SEZ-STPI undertakings are not required to be adjusted against the profits arising from other SEZ-STPI undertakings and the said loss can be adjusted against profits arising from non-SEZ-non-STPI units.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that when AO of searched person and other person is same, there is no mandatory requirement for AO of searched person to record satisfaction of material having found belonging to the person for valid jurisdiction under section 153C of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that that car parking cannot be separated from the main business of SEZ, hence deduction under section 80IAB of the Income Tax Act duly available on income from car parking rental.
Delhi High Court under its inherent power under section 482 of Cr. P.C. quashes the FIR as no criminality appears to have been done on the part of the petitioners. Criminal colour has been given to the civil dispute.
ITAT Delhi held that provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied in relation to the cash sales receipt shown by the assessee in its books of accounts.
CESTAT Kolkata held that duty demand on supply of transmission line accessories and hardware fittings unsustainable as the same is only supply and not manufacture. Further, revenue couldn’t adduce any evidence of clandestine manufacture.