INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ORDER...Rs.2 lakhs made in the SB. Account 10875 of one Sri B.V....

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ORDER 2010-TIOL-485-ITAT -MUM

ACIT, Mumbai Vs Elphinstone Cricket Club (Dated: May 31, 2010)

Income Tax – Sections 2(47)(v), 53A, 54EC - Whether the date of transfer of property is to be taken as the date on which Sale Deed is entered into or the date on which possession is handed over, for the purpose of charging capital gains .

Also see analysis of the Order

2010-TIOL-484-ITAT -MUM

Gargi Huttenes Albertus Pvt Ltd Vs Addl.CIT, Mumbai (Dated: January 18, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 40A(2) - Whether AO is justified in making disallowance merely on the ground that the assessee's sister concern had made supplies of improved quality of raw materials.

Also see analys is of the Order


ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Publicis Ambience Advertising Pvt Ltd (Dated: June 30, 2010)

Income Tax – Sections 32(1)(ii), 147, 148 – Depreciation on Goodwill - Whether the CIT(A) was correct in directing the AO to treat Rs 2.15 crores paid towards goodwill as acquisition of certain rights which are to be treated as assets eligible for depreciation without appreciating the fact that the same does not fall within the definition of intangible assets as per Section 32.


Mrs Krishnadevi Kejriwal Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: June 25, 2010)

Income Tax - Sections 45, 54F - Bogus long term capital gain (LTG) - Whether the AO was correct in doubting the transaction of LTG and taxing the same on the basis of newspaper reports published in 2006 and ignoring other evidences such as the year of transaction was 2001 and the sale of the shares was through stock exchange and monies were also received via banking channel.

2010-TIOL-481-ITAT -DEL

ITO, New Delhi Vs Maruti Centre For Excellence (Dated: May 12, 2010)

Income Tax - Sections 11, 12 - Whether in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Surat Gymkhana ( 2008-TIOL-64-SC-IT ) it is now settled that once exemption has been granted by way of registration by the DIT(E) u/s 12A and section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, the Assessing Officer cannot override the exemption and not give effect to it while passing the assessment order.


ITO, Mumbai Vs M/s Hill Properties Ltd (Dated: July 16, 2010)

Income Tax – Whether the principle of mutuality applies irrespective of the form which the association takes for the purpose of taxability.


DCIT, New Delhi Vs Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd (Dated: May 14, 2010)

Income Tax – Section 145 – Valuation of closing stock - Whether the AO can disturb the method of valuation of closing stock regularly or consistently followed by the assessee since many years and that was also accepted by the department.


M/s KEC International Limited Vs Addl.CIT, Mumbai (Dated: June 4, 2010)

Income Tax – Sections 32(1)(ii), 40(a), 43B – Whether the term “Brand” falls within the ambit of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act so as to be eligible for depreciation – Whether the transferee of the business is eligible to claim deduction in respect of the liability taken over from the transferor for which the payment was subsequently made by the transferee.



Sanghi Motors (Bom) Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated: April 20, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 23(1)(a) - Whether the actual letting value has to be determined with reference to the actual rent received by the assessee or on the basis of the amount what has been received by its tenants from the ultimate user for the purpose of calculation u/s 23(1)(a) of the Act.


ITO, New Delhi Vs M/s Mother Dairy Food Processing Ltd (Dated: May 10, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 194H - Whether, where the goods are sold at a lesser price than of MRP to the vendors and the vendors in turn sell them at MRP, can it be said that the transaction is on principal to principal basis and the provisions of section 194H are not applicable.

2010-TIOL-475-ITAT -BANG

M/s P R Kulkarni & Sons (HUF) Vs Addl.CIT, Mysore (Dated: January 29, 2010)

Income Tax – Section 54F – Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to deduction u/s 54F(1)


M/s Amalgamated Commercial Traders Pvt Ltd Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: July 9, 2010)

Income Tax – Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Section 73 – Whether the loss arising from trading in respect of shares of Private limited companies allowable to the assessee .


Dy.CIT, Mumbai Vs Datacraft India Ltd (Dated: July 9, 2010)

Income Tax – Section 32 - Whether routers and switches can be classified as computers, entitled to depreciation at 60% or to be classified as general plant and machine entitled to depreciation only at 25%.



ITO, Mumbai Vs M/s Sundaram Gems Pvt Ltd (Dated: May 14, 2010)

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 131, 136, 145 - Whether the AO was justified to reject the books of accounts u/s 145 of the Act without invoking its power u/s 131 to issue summons to the parties for clarification and when there is no defect pointed out by the AO in such accounts - Whether AO was justified to make additions to the profits of the assessee solely on the facts that there was a less rate of gross profit declared by an assessee as compared to the previous year.


JCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Gharda Chemicals Ltd (Dated: July 16, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 80HHC, 115JB - Whether where the gross total income of the assessee is nil deduction under section 80HHC is not allowable and the book profit has to be determined without considering the deduction of 80HHC.


Dy.CIT, New Delhi Vs M/s VRM (India) Limited (Dated: April 23, 2010)

Income Tax – Section 80IB – Whether deduction u/s 80IB(10) can be denied on the fact that the development and execution of the housing project is undertaken on the basis of the contract awarded to the assessee and thus the project is not owned by the assessee himself, thereby meaning that the assessee worked as a contractor and not as a developer and builder of housing project.


K L Ramatha Bhat Vs ITO, Bangalore (Dated: January 15, 2010)

Income Tax – Section 69 – Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2 lakhs made u/s 69 as 'cash credit treated as income' and holding that deposit of Rs.2 lakhs made in the SB. Account 10875 of one Sri B.V. Ganapathy is 'the undisclosed income' of the assessee.

2010-TIOL-468-ITAT -COCHIN-TM

ITO, Ernakulam Vs Eurostar Distilleries Pvt Ltd (Dated: January 29, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 4 - Whether trade advances which were received from foreign buyers and remained in the books after adjusting the value of goods supplied, can be treated as income of the assessee ignoring that the same has been remitted back in subsequent year after taking approval from RBI.



Bharti Airtel Limited Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated: June 25, 2010)

Income Tax - Sections 35ABB, 37(1), 40A(2) - Whether the fee paid by the assessee to the DOT for obtaining license to operate telecom services can be amortised over the period of the licence as a revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act - Whether the interest paid on the licence fee is in the nature of revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act.


M/s Motorola India Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, Bangalore (Dated: May 12, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 263 - Whether under the facts and circumstances the CIT(A) is justified in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263.


M/s Ganpati Enterprises Vs ACIT, Muzaffarnagar (Dated: July 30, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 184, 185 - Registration of Partnership Firm - Whether in view of the amended provisions of section 184 and 185 as applicable from 1-4-1989 for registration of Partnership firm, submission of registered deed is sufficient and the AO has no power to question the genuineness of the firm.


ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Kanga & Co (Dated: May 14, 2010)

Income Tax – Sections 40(b), 44AB, 147, 148 - Whether for reopening the assessment, there has to be some tangible materials in the hands of the AO and whether tangible material means that material which is collected by the AO from

sources other than, what is present in the return of income itself.


ITO,HaryanaVs Shri Virender Pahuja (Dated: July 30, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 4 - Whether the assessing officer was justified in estimating the GP of assessee by taking into consideration the dummy audit report prepared by one agent of ICICI Bank for providing loan to the assessee and manipulating book results of assessee proprietorship firm.


Premier Ancillaries Pvt Ltd Vs ITO, New Delhi (Dated: July 30, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 194J, 194H - Whether charges received for providing consultancy services can be taxed as income from house property if the payer has wrongly applied the TDS rate applicable to income from house property.


ACIT, Hyderabad Vs GMR Industries Ltd (Dated: March 31, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 36(1)(iii) - Interest on share application money - Whether share application money is debt for the assessee company till the time the share allotment is done - Whether interest paid on such debt is allowable.



DCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Asset Alliance Securities Pvt Ltd (Dated: July 16, 2010)

Income Tax – Section 40(a)(ia), 194C, 194J - Whether the payments made by the assessee on account of ISDN / Leaseline charges, Stock Exchange expenses, Transaction charges and VSAT charges to the stock exchanges amount to fees for technical services and the assessee ought to have deducted tax u/s 194J – Whether the payments to the jobbers and arbitragers be said to be for the purpose of carrying out a work in pursuance of a contract l iable to TDS u/s 194C



Hindalco Industries Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated: July 30, 2010)

Income Tax – Sections 94(7), 80 GGB, 80 HHC, 271(1)(c) – Whether claiming deduction in excess of what is eligible be said to be a part of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income so as to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) – Whether penalty proceeding cannot be agitated in view of the fact that the assessee did not press relevant ground in merit appeal.

2010-TIOL-458-ITAT -MAD-TM

Super Spinning Mills Ltd Vs ACIT, Coimbatore (Dated: March 12, 2010)

Income Tax – Section 143(2), 147 – Validity of reopening of assessment - Whether the proceedings u/s 147 cannot be initiated when the time available for issuing notice u/s 143(2) has not expired.



DCIT, mumbai Vs M/s Sunrise Stone Industries (Dated: July 30, 2010)

Income Tax – Accrual of Income - Whether since an amount was merely subjected to TDS would lead to the conclusion that the income had accrued to the assessee.


ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Suman Prem Kumar Khurana (Dated: March 31, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 23(1)(b - Assessee received rent and offered the same as rental income - AO estimated the rent of the property solely on the premise that properties located in Nariman Point, have more rental value - CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee - On further appeal of revenue, ITAT held that the AO has power to estimate fair rent, however the fair rent should not be more than the Municipal value and in the case a t hand there was no discussion on the Municipal Value of the impugned property hence the matter restored to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the Municipal value and if the same was less than the actual rent received by the assessee then the rent actually received by the assessee was to be taxed. Income Tax - Section 94(8) - Allowance of short term capital loss - Assessee claimed

shrot term capital loss on sale of some units - AO disallowed the same - CIT(A) allowed the same - on appeal of the revenue, ITAT observed that in this case the units were not dividend bearing and the same was a case of bonus stripping - section 94(8) was inserted by the Finance (No.2) 2004 with effect from 1.4.2005 and, therefore, the same was applicable only from assessment 2005-06 - In the absence of relevant provision for bonus stripping the principle laid down in the case of Wallfort Shares & Stock Brokers Ltd. would apply.


M/s Standard Chartered Finance Limited Vs ACIT, Bangalore (Dated: May 13, 2010)

Income Tax - section 36(1)(vii) - Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction for write off of bad debts.

2010-TIOL-454-ITAT -MAD

M/s Amirtham Transport Vs DCIT, Chennai (Dated: April 16, 2010)

Income Tax - Whether the disallowance of business expenditure is justified u/s 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct tax at source u/s 194C.


DCIT, New Delhi Vs M/s Well Intertrade (P) Ltd (Dated: July 23, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 79 - carry forward of business loss, depreciation, long term capital loss and short-term capital loss - Whether provisions of section 79, which prohibit the carry forward of business losses of a company whose share holding pattern is changed, would also restrict the depreciation, long term capital loss and short term capital loss.


DCIT, New Delhi Vs M/s Valliant Communication Ltd (Dated: April 23, 2010)

Income Tax - Sections 10A, 10B - Whether AO can deny Sec 10B benefits particularly when benefits have been allowed in the previous AYs - Whether Section 10B requires that for the purpose of establishing a STP unit, approval is required to be sought from the Board appointed by the central government u/s 14 of the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951.



ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Standard Chartered Asset Management Co Pvt Ltd (Dated: July 7, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 371(1) - Whether 'scheme launch' expenses of an asset management company are to be treated as revenue expenditure or to be amortised over a period of time.


M/s Ideaspace Solutions Ltd Vs ACIT, Hyderabad (Dated: March 5, 2010)

Income Tax - Sections 10A, 10(6), 72, 80HHE - Whether the provisions of section 80HHE are not akin to that of Sec 10A and hence the overseas branch's turnover has no relation with the non-STPI income and therefore for the purpose of income tax the profits of non-STPI unit are alone to be considered ignoring the losses of overseas branch - Whether the CIT (A) is correct in observing that consequent to amendment to section 10(6) the carry forward of losses u/s 72 is allowable only after the expiry of the holiday period and not before that.


ACIT, Mangalore Vs M/s Islamic Academy Of Education (Dated: January 29, 2010)

Income Tax – Section 244A - Whether interest on self assessment tax is payable u/s 244A .

2010-TIOL-448-ITAT -AGRA-TM

ACIT, Firozabad Vs M/s Kaycee Glass Works (Dated: April 13, 2010)

Income Tax – Section 69 - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.8,64,670/- made on account of unexplained investment in bank drafts as the assessee has failed to furnish/ produce evidence for having financial capacity for making such a huge investment in the purchase of bank draft.

2010-TIOL-447-ITAT -MUM-SB

DCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Bank Of Bahrain & Kuwait (Dated: August 13, 2010)

Income Tax - Sections 28, 145 - Whether in case of forward contracts the date of maturity of contract is not relevant and hence, the assessee which is a banker, is entitled for claims of losses resulting from fluctuation of foreign exchange in relation to contracts entered into with customers for purchase of foreign exchange at a future date.



The Airlines Hotel Pvt Ltd Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: July 16, 2010)

Income Tax - Sections 23(1) & (2), 37(1) - Whether where an assessee is doing business from his own premises the taxes relatable to such building are allowable as business expenses irrespective of the provisions of section 23(1) and 23(2) and hence the AO is not correct in disallowing the same on the ground that the 80% of the building was lying vacant.


A F Ferguson & Co Vs JCIT (Dated: August 13, 2010)

Income Tax – Sections 143(3), 234C - Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made on account of sundry creditors as on 31st March, 2003 and also in confirming the addition made on account of the income diverted to the retired partners under the partnership deed.


M/s Concorde Developers Vs ACIT, Bangalore (Dated: January 22, 2010)

Income Tax – Section 132 – Whether the CIT(A) was justified in estimating the income at 15% on the facts and circumstances of the case.


Season Apparels Pvt Ltd Vs Dy.CIT, Mumbai (Dated: April 30, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 271(1)(c) - Whether CIT(A) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to enhance the quantum of penalty levied by him u/s 271(1)(c).


Trent Brands Ltd Vs ACIT, New Delhi (Dated: February 18, 2010)

Income Tax – Sections 22, 147 – Whether assessment of similar income under the different heads in different AYs leads to a conclusion that the escapement of income was by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment so as to reopen the assessment u/s 147 – Whether rent received amounted to business income or Income from House Property.


ACIT, New Delhi Vs M/s Chawla Construction Co (Dated: July 16, 2010)

Income Tax – Sections 37, 57 - Whether the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that AO has submitted conclusive evidence to prove that the expenses claimed by the assessee are not genuine and that the income from maintenance charges is income from business, ignoring the fact that receipt of maintenance are incidental to rental income and as such is assessable under the head income from other sources - whether the allowances and expenses against the other sources income are to be considered u/s 57 of the Act.


Mrs Sarita Handa Vs ACIT, New Delhi (Dated: July 16, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 40(a)(ia), 194C – Whether liability to deduct tax at source u/s 194C arises on payments made towards reimbursement of expenses incurred for manufacturing of goods to be exported against a time deadline - Whether the arrangement between the assessee and the company offering its manufacturing facility was a contract and thus provisions of Sec 40(a)(ia) are applicable to the payments made for using the manufacturing facilities.


2010-TIOL-439-ITAT -MAD-TM

ACIT, Chennai Vs Shri Amarnath Reddy (Dated: April 15, 2010)

Income Tax - Sections 37(1), 69C, 253(1), 253(2) - Whether the words “aggrieved” and “objects” as appearing in section 253(1) and section 253(2) of the Act respectively have any bearing on the scope of appeal filed by the assessee and department and hence it is permissible for the department to raise a fresh plea while challenging the order of the Commissioner though such plea relates to the subject but not discussed by any of the authorities below.



M/s Ramgopal Ganpatrai & Sons Vs ACIT , Mumbai (Dated: March 26, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 23 - Annual value of property - Assessee company leased outs its property prior to the implementation of Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 - AO estimated the rent on the basis of market value alleging that the assessee had violated the provisions of MRC Act - CIT (A) confirmed the order of the AO - Before the ITAT assessee argued that since the lease of the property was entered into prior to the enactment of MRC Act, the rent fixed will become the standard rent under the MRC Act - also pointed out that in earlier years the value of rent received was accepted by the department.


TLT Engineering (India) Pvt Ltd Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: July 30, 2010)

Income Tax – Sections 68, 145 – Whether in the absence of any bills for verification, addition of the differential amount as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 is justified – Whether unutilised modvat credit for raw material should be added to the closing stock to reflect the true value of the closing stock .


ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Tractor Engineers Ltd (Dated: July 23, 2010)

Income Tax – Sections 37(1), 40A(9), 133(6) - Whether On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not examining the issue of admissibility of the expenses allegedly incurred by the assessee for paying to L & T Ltd. without any statutory or contractual liability of the assessee towards the payee – Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT(A) was not justified in allowing the expenses on account of commission to agents, without there being any evidence to show that the alleged agents have rendered any service to the assessee.


M/s Transindia Freight Services Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated: June 25, 2010)

Income Tax – Sec 40A(3) - Whether CIT(A) erred in confirming the method of comparing the net profits of AY 2003-04 with the net profits of AY 2002-03 as adopted

by the AO for making additions to the income of the assessee company and thus coming to the conclusion that the net profit of the assessee company ought to have been 8.15% for the year under consideration.


Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, New Delhi (Dated: July 30, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 32, 40(a)(ia) – Whether if certain business expenses are capitalised, the assessee is barred from claiming the same as revenue in nature - Whether depreciation @ 100% is allowable on the expenditure incurred on purely temporary structures such as wooden structure, false ceiling, painting etc. on leasehold premises.



Valvoline Cummins Ltd Vs ACIT, New Delhi (Dated: July 23, 2010)

Income Tax – Section 37(1) - Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO was justified in making additions to the returned income on various counts .


ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Vinati Ogranics Ltd (Dated: July 23, 2010)

Income Tax – Whether earlier year's depreciation has to be added for the purpose of computing book profit under special provisions of Section 115JA


The Coorg Foundation Vs Director Of Income Tax, Bangalore(Dated: May 3, 2010)

Income Tax Act, 1961- Sections 2(15), 11, 23, 80G, 143, Rule 11AA - Whether the time taken by the assessee trust in complying with the directions of the DIT(E) has to be excluded for calculation of the time limit of six months as per rule 11AA (6) - Where the predominant purpose of a trust or institution is relief of the poor, education or medical relief, can it still be considered to be engaged in ‘charitable purpose' as per the new section 2(15) even if it incidentally involves the carrying on of commercial activities - Whether repayment of interest free loan by the assessee Trust to Tata Coffee Limited was in violation of section 13 of the Act - Whether the assessee's claim of capital loss on redemption of investments can be considered as application of

income of the Trust - Whether the inter trust donations by the assessee trust to other eligible trusts was not an application of income under the Act.


DCIT, Chennai Vs Shri R Benjamin Cherian (Dated: March 31, 2010)

Income tax – Section 10B - Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is justified in holding that the activity of the assessee is ‘manufacturing' and, therefore, eligible for exemption u/s 10B – Held Yes


M/s Hetampuria Impex Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated: May 21, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 139, 142, 143, 148 - Whether cranes mounted on the trucks being run on hire for transportation of goods can be considered as an integral part of the truck and therefore be allowed a depreciation at the rate of 40 % similar to the trucks - Whether the AO has the powers u/s 147 to re-open the assessment after the expiry of 4 years when the AO has reasons to believe that the income has escaped assessment.


Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri Vs Dy.CIT, Mumbai (Dated: April 21, 2010)

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 37(1) - Whether the AO was justified to disallow the entire foreign travelling expenses incurred by the assessee on the ground that they have not been incurred wholly and substantially for the business purposes


ACIT, Faridabad Vs M/s Voith Paper Fabrics India Ltd (Dated: July 23, 2010)

Income Tax – Section 32 – Whether air-conditioner, refrigerator and office equipments are in the nature of furniture and fixture or plant and machinery, for the purpose of applying rate of depreciation allowable under the Act - Whether Software Expenditure & up-gradation expenses for server are recurring expenditure having no enduring benefit and therefore, the expenses are to be allowed in full as revenue expenditure - Whether expenditure on Repair and Maintenance of building are in the nature of capital expenditure so as to be disallowed .



ITO, Mumbai Vs M/s Savvion India Pvt Ltd (Dated: June 25, 2010)

Income tax - Sections 10B, 271(1)(c) - Whether penalty survives even if disallowance is deleted.


Crabtree India Ltd Vs ACIT, New Delhi (Dated: February 25, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 37 - Whether for allowing expenses under the provisions of income Tax, the presence of corresponding income attributable to such expenses is sine-qua- non.


Bloom Packaging Private Limited Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated: May 17, 2010)

Income Tax – Sec 41(1) – Whether interest written back, which had not been allowed as a deduction in the earlier years needs to be excluded from the total income - Whether capital advances written off allowable as deduction under Income Tax Act – Whether AO can determine the assessed income as per the return of income in case the assessed income as computed by him is lower than the returned income.


Dy.CIT, New Delhi Vs The India Thernit Corporation Ltd (Dated: June 2, 2010)

Income tax - Sec 36(1)(vii) - Assessee claims deduction for bad debts - AO insists on proving that sufficient efforts were made to recover the sum - CIT(A) deletes the additions - held, after the amendment in the relevant section w.e.f 1.4.1989, assessee is not required to establish that the debts have become bad and sincere recovery efforts were made - writing off the same in books is enough to claim the deduction.

Commission - Assessee pays commission to Directors of the company besides their salaries - AO disallows on the ground of falling percentage of GP and sees no reason for paying commission for increases sales - held, in view of the Tribunal's decision in assessee's own case for earlier AY, additions are deleted and deduction allowed.


ACIT, Faridabad Vs VSB Investment Pvt Ltd (Dated: June 11, 2010)

Income Tax – Sec 94(7), 271(1)(c) - Penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and for concealment of income - During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had calculated the disallowance of Rs. 8,59,817/- u/s 94 (7) at its own and surrendered it for tax subject to no penalty – In the penalty order it was pointed out by the AO that as per order sheet entry dated 9.8.2007 details of dividend and bonus stripping were asked and thereafter only, the assessee gave its reply vide letter dated 28.1.2007 in which calculation and notes for dividend and bonus stripping was provided and the surrender was made – CIT(A) quashed the penalty however on revenue's appeal ITAT upheld the levy of penalty after observing as under:

+ Only after detection by the AO did the assessee made surrender.

+ The assessee had claimed double benefit by claiming on one hand that the dividend income as exempt and on the other claimed set off of loss on sale of shares against income on sale of shares, which is taxable income.

+ The assessee had made a bogus claim of set off of such loss on sale of shares against income on sale of shares and hence, it cannot be said that the assessee's conduct was bona fide.

+ The assessee had also not submitted complete details with regard to its loss in respect of sale of these shares which loss is not allowable in full / part in view of the provisions of sec. 94 (7) of the Act. Since the details supplied by the assessee along with its return of income were not full, complete and correct hence the present case is not a case where all the facts relating to claim were disclosed by the assessee. Hence the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Reliance Petro ( 2010-TIOL-21-SC-IT ) is of no help to the assessee in the present case.

+ Provisions of sec. 94(7) which were inserted by the Finance Act 2001 w.e.f. 1.4.2002, and there is no ambiguity with regard to the said provisions.

+ It cannot be said that the assessee was not aware about the provisions of section 94(7) which were inserted by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1.4.2002.

+ Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) is directly applicable and the penalty is rightly imposed by the AO.


ITO, Mumbai Vs M/s Bhadrasen Construction Pvt Ltd (Dated: June 30, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 4 - Whether an assessee who is following project completion method and has constructed the residential complex on his own is out of the purview of revised (Accounting Standard) AS-7 which is applicable in the case of construction contracts and recognizes percentage completion method and hence the AO was not correct in ignoring project completion method and applying percentage completion method particularly when the method applied by the assessee has been accepted in earlier years.



Shri B V Prabhu Vs ITO, Tumkur (Dated: January 29, 2010)

Income Tax Act, 1961- Section 40(a)(ia), 44AE, 194 - Whether the assessee having a transport business was entitled to claim deduction u/s 40(a)(ia) pertaining to its expenditure when it had failed to deduct tax u/s 194 of the Act for payments made to the sub-contractors - Whether provisions of section 40(a)(ia) will be applicable in respect of transport contract business when the income is ascertained as per section 44AE of the Act in absence of any tax audit


DCIT, Mangalore Vs M/s Mescom (Dated: May 19, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 115WB, 115WE - When there is no proximate purpose of the expenses paid by the assessee company for its agencies other than the employees then whether the same can be considered as fringe benefit under the deeming provision of section 115WB(2) of Act.



Dr Naresh Trehan Vs DCIT, New Delhi (Dated: June 4, 2010)

Income Tax Act, 1961- Section 10(10D) - Whether CIT(A) was justified to tax the proceeds arising from the maturity value of the Keyman insurance policy to the extent of the surrender value when the policy was originally taken by the company and later on transferred to the individual assessee.


M/s Vikas Road Carriers Ltd Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: July 16, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 40(a)(ia) - Whether disallowance made u/s section 40(a)(ia) in respect of freight payment made to transporters was justified.


M/s Arthur Anderson & Co Vs Addl.CIT, Mumbai (Dated: July 23, 2010)

Income Tax – Section 37 – Whether on the facts of the case, the AO was justified in disallowing expenditure incurred on ad hoc and token basis



DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd Vs ACIT, New Delhi (Dated: April 23, 2010)

Income Tax – Section 115JB – Whether in computing book profit u/s 115JB, provision for doubtful debt has to be added back in the book profit on the reasoning that provision is in the nature of unascertained liabilities.


Mind Space Hr Consultants Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: June 24, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 68 - Whether the AO was justified in disallowing the venue expenses on the ground that lesser amount was credited in the profit and loss account - Whether the AO was justified in disallowing the car expenses when the assessee did not maintain proper books of accounts - Whether the AO can disallow the telephone expenses on the ground that it was used for personal purposes when the telephone was installed inside the office premises - Whether the amount received by the firm can be treated as undisclosed income once it has been duly recorded being a capital introduced by the partners and the assessee having discharged its onus of proving the source.


M/s SRM Hotels Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, Chennai (Dated: March 30, 2010)

Income Tax Act - Section 153C – Recording of Satisfaction - Revenue conducted search in the group concerns of assessee company and framed the assessment u/s 153C and made certain additions – Before CIT(A) the assessee challenged the assessment on the ground that there was no written satisfaction of the AO who exercised jurisdiction over searched person - the CIT(A) was of the view that under the new provisions of Section 153C, no written satisfaction was required.

2010-TIOL-412-ITAT -AHM

LGE & C Patel-J V Vs ACIT, Vapi (Dated: April 16, 2010)

Income Tax - Sections 2(26), 2 (31)(v) , 36(2), 40A (2)(b), 43B, 80IA, 80IA(4), 143(1), 234B, 271(1)(c) - Whether expenses of a joint venture can be claimed as deduction if the joint venture is legally alive but one of the joint venture partners has withdrawn and the work of the venture is continued by the other partner.



Dy.CIT, New Delhi Vs M/s Purolator India Ltd (Dated: May 13, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 80IB, 80HHC, 143, 147, 148 - Whether the AO was justified in the initiation of reassessment proceedings after the expiry of four years when the assessee has not failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts relating to the computation of the income.


Trumac Engineering Co Pvt Ltd Vs Dy.CIT, Mumbai (Dated: April 30, 2010)

Income Tax - Rule 6D - Whether CIT(A) justified in confirming disallowance of Rs.56,960/- u/r 6D - Whether CIT(A) justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.33,72,022/- being expenditure incurred on licensing Application of Software and System Software.


Dy.CIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Accenture Services Pvt Ltd (Dated: March 23, 2010)

Income Tax - Sections 10A, 30-36, 35D(2), 36(1)(vii), 36(2), 37(1), 40(a)(i), 92CA(3), 234D, CBDT Circular no. 564 - Whether technical fee paid by the assessee to its non-resident parent company is deductible expenses u/s 37.

2010-TIOL-408-ITAT -DEL-SB

Tecumseh India Pvt Ltd Vs Addl.CIT, New Delhi (Dated: July 30, 2010)

Income Tax – Non Compete Fee – Whether the assessee, by entering into non–competition agreement, has acquired any benefit of enduring nature which can be treated as capital expenditure – Whether the non-compete amount should be considered separately from what was paid by the assessee to acquire the business activity of transformers and its related facilities from Whirlpool India Ltd - Whether expenditure incurred on increase in authorized share capital is capital or revenue



Kantilal V Vakharia Vs JCIT, Mumbai (Dated: July 16, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 80-O - whether the mere claim, without proper supporting evidence, is sufficient to presume that the assessee has supplied consultancy services to the foreign residents vis -à-vis investment in shares and have earned exempted income, is sustainable.


DCIT, New Delhi Vs M/s Logitronics Pvt Ltd (Dated: April 30, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 2(24), 28(i), 28(iv), 41(1) - Whether the assessee can be allowed to exclude the amount of loan waived off by the bank as income in the hands of the assessee u/s 41(1) of the Act on the ground that the same is not in the nature of cessation or remission of any trading liability and further when the assessee has failed to prove that the loan taken by the assessee from bank was utilized for the purpose of acquiring any capital asset.



Nielma Synthetics Pvt Ltd Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: March 25, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 133A - Excess stock found during Survey - As a consequence of search in one of the group companies, department conducted survey on assessee and found excess stock - Assessee surrendered the same, however, since the accounting period was in operation the assessee debited the purchase account and credited the profit and loss account by profit earned on these purchases and showed the balance stock as opening stock for the next accounting year - AO asked the assessee as to why the excess stock was not reflected separately - Assessee explained that the excess purchases were first debited in the purchase account and the profit on the same was reflected in the profit and loss a ccount - The AO rejected the plea of the assessee and made additions - Before CIT(A) the assessee explained that the credit in profit and loss account was just double of the purchase account consisting the excess stock surrendered, - CIT(A) affirmed the view of the AO.


DCIT, Mumbai Vs Cello Stationery Products (Dated: February 23, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 80IB - Whether the creation of marketing arm be termed as a device to shift the legitimate expenses of the assessee firm to the marketing arm, so as to show higher profits in the hands of the assessee firm, which could be claimed as deduction u/s 80-IB


The Soft Ice-Cream Co Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated: March 31, 2010)

Income Tax - 132, 145(2) - Search and seizure - Assessee is a company manufacturing and selling soft ice -cream from various parlours in Mumbai - Department conducted search and found discrepancy in the sales shown and recorded in books of one the parlours - AO estimated the sales and made addition on estimation basis - CIT(A) confirmed the addition - Before ITAT assessee argued that the AO had wrongly estimated the profits nor rejected its books of accounts - also showed sales tax assessment order wherein the sales as shown by the assessee was accepted.


J M Bottlings (P) Ltd Vs JCIT, Chennai (Dated: June 18, 2010)

The assessee, a Bottling Company, is engaged in bottling of soft drinks. The assessee had agreement in the year 1990 for a period of ten years and was also renewed thereafter with a sister concern, engaged in distribution of soft drink. The assessee, was a sick company at that time and was pressed hard by financial institutions and others for repayment. The assessee was in the process of revival and BIFR had ordered for winding up in September 1993. This resulted into termination of bottling agreement entered into by the assessee with a sister concern. The assessee claimed a loss of Rs. 1.50 crores which was ultimately settled at Rs. 100 lakhs. The assessee paid a sum of Rs. 100 lakhs to a sister concern as a business loss incurred by them. It was claimed that this payment is a result of business consideration and is an allowable expenditure.


ACIT, Faridabad Vs M/s Nuchem Limited (Dated: July 23, 2010)

Income Tax – Section 271(1)(c) – Whether penalty is warranted for mere failure of the assessee to substantiate the claim made and explanation furnished.



ACIT, New Delhi Vs M/s Kalindi Agro Biotech Ltd (Dated: May 14 2010)

Income Tax - Section 40(a)(ia) - Whether the activity of assessee providing seeds to farmers and buying back entire produce can be treated as works contract and farmers as jobworkers - Whether provisions of Sec 194C apply to it - Whether the payments made to the farmers are not allowable u/s 40(a0(ia).



ITO, Mumbai Vs M/s Savoy Real Estate Developers Pvt Ltd (Dated: April 30, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 145A – Whether 12% of entire project receipts are to be brought to tax or only such receipts, as pertained to the relevant assessment year, are to be taken into account on the facts of the case.


ITO, Bangalore Vs M/s United Racing & Bloodstock Breeders Ltd (Dated: May 28, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 69B - Whether the CIT(A) justified in deleting an addition of Rs.24,45,579/- made by the AO u/s 69B for the purchase of horses.

2010-TIOL-397-ITAT -MUM-WT

M/s Cravatex Limited Vs Addl. CIT, Mumbai (Dated: June 30, 2010)

Wealth Tax Act - Section 2(ea), 3 - Whether prior to the amended provisions of section 2(e)(a) the commercial complexes were very much “assets” and the amended provisions, which excludes the commercial complex from the definition of “assets”, are prospective in effect - Whether as per the agreement between the assessee and the other party it can be construed that the agreement was for the lease of the property and hence benefit provided in section 2(e)(a) of the Act will not be available to the assessee as per the amended provisions of section 2(ea).



Nitin N Bedre Vs ACIT , Mumbai (Dated: May 21, 2010)

Income tax – Sections 16(1), 37(1) - Head of Income – Whether CIT(A) erred in holding that the amount received by the assessee is salary income instead of business income.


Dy. CIT, Bangalore Vs M/s LG Soft India Pvt Ltd (Dated: May 19, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 10A - Whether Assessee was entitled for deduction u/s 10A?


Sri Paul Noel Rodriques Vs ACIT, Mangalore (Dated: March 17, 2010)

Income Tax - Whether Revenue is justified in treating a sum of Rs.1,12,854 as a liability in existence and adding the same to the income declared by the Assessee - Whether Assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80C.


ITO, New Delhi Vs M/s Magic Software Pvt Ltd (Dated: May 14, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 68 - Whether the CIT(A) has correctly deleted the addition of cash credit after admitting additional evidence observing that the AO has not made any adverse comment in his remand report apropos additional evidence.


ACIT, Chennai Vs Shri T R Pachamuthu (Dated: March 30, 2010)

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules - Rule 29 - Admission of additional evidence - Whether the additional evidences filed by the assessee such as Balance sheets of the persons from whom advances were taken are admissible in view of the fact that the admission of these evidences will not prejudice the interest of revenue in as much as the other evidences to prove genuineness of transactions are already on record and the case of the assessee can be decided de hors such evidences.


DCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Zeus Air Services Pvt Ltd (Dated: February 11, 2010)

Income Tax – Whether commission can be disallowed on the mere facts that the parties to whom cheques have been issued have withdrawn the cash, thereby inferring that the cash has flown back to the assessee and that the commission payment is not genuine.

2010-TIOL-390-ITAT -MUM-SB

DCIT, Mumbai Vs Shri Shreyas S Morakhia (Dated: July 16, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 36(1)(vii), 36(2) - Whether the assessee, a share broker, is entitled to deduction for bad debts in respect of the amount which could not be recovered from its clients in respect of transactions effected by him on behalf of his client besides the commission earned by him - Whether to claim deduction of bad debt u/s 36(1) (vii), one of the conditions as laid down u/s 36(2) (i) is required to be satisfied in the case of a share broker, who is doing sale and purchase on behalf of clients.



M/s EMC Vs Addl.CIT, Mumbai (Dated: June 26, 2010)

Income Tax - Sections 194C, 194J, 201(1), 201(1A), 206, 272A(2)(c) - Whether the penalty can be imposed in the circumstances where the Assessee had neither deducted any tax at source nor paid any such tax


ACIT, New Delhi Vs M/s Shiva Commodities & Derivatives (Dated: February 12, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 2(22)(e) - Whether in view of the decision of special Bench in the case of Bhaumik Colours the provisions of section 2(22)(e) are applicable only when the share holder is registered and beneficial share holder and not otherwise


ACIT, Coimbatore Vs M/s Precot Meridian Ltd (Dated: March 19, 2010)

Income Tax - Sec 37- Addition on account of low tariff charged form sister concern - Assessee sold out electricity to it's sister concern at discounted rate - AO is of the view that assessee should have charged at rate given to others and made additions - Before CIT(A) assessee explained that sister concern made payment earlier than others, CIT(A) deleted addition - On appeal, ITAT held that a perusal of records shows that the assessee's sister concern made payment earlier than others, therefore relying on the decision of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT & Ors ( 2006-TIOL-179-SC-IT ) Revenue's appeal dismissed.

Income Tax - Disallowance of long term capital shares - Assessee shows long term capital loss on account of sale of share of the company (subsequently merged with the assessee) - AO takes the view that the transaction was bogus and disallowed the loss for the want of identity of purchaser and exact market price of the shares - CIT(A) affirmed the order of the AO - Assessee filed appeal to ITAT and argued that the shares were sold through broker and contract notes were produced which are evident of the transaction - Held that mere contract notes are not sufficient for proving the transaction and until and unless the primary onus vis -à-vis identity of purchaser and valuation of shares is discharged by the assessee to establish prima facie that the transaction is genuine, the claim of the assessee cannot be accepted - Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.


M/s Airline Financial Support Services (India) Pvt Ltd Vs ITO , Mumbai (Dated: March 17, 2009)

Income Tax Act - Section 234B - Whether the AO, while framing the reassessment, has correctly levied the interest of 234B from the first day of next financial year where the assessee has defaulted in paying advance tax.


M/s Bangalore Housing Development & Investments Vs ACIT, Bangalore (Dated: May 20, 2010)

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 10(10D), 36(1)(i), 37(1), 80DDA - Whether an insurance policy taken by an assessee firm for the benefit of the firm be considered as Keyman insurance policy and further can the insurance premium paid be claimed as business expenditure in the absence of credible business income.


Dy.CIT, Mumbai Vs Godrej Tea Ltd (Dated: February 12, 2010 )

Income tax – Sec 37 - Assessee company, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling tea and other products, filed its retu rn declaring loss - assessee incurred heavy expenditure on brand promotion amounting to Rs.6,82,43,142/- of which 45,70,112/- was debited to the P&L A/c. for the year under consideration in the books of account - The balance expenditure of Rs.6,36,73,030/- was deferred over a period of 3 years as deferred revenue expenditure. However, in its return, the assessee company claimed the entire expenditure of brand promotion as allowable expenses. A.O. disallowed Rs. 6,36,73,030/- stating that the expenditure should be allowed over a period of 3 years in the same manner as has been treated in the books of account. Assessee contented that the brand promotion expenditure constitutes revenue expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and by incurring such expenditure, no asset or advantage has been brought into existence. The concept of “enduring benefit” must respond to the changing economic realities of business. Entries in the books of accounts cannot decide the allowability or otherwise of expenses incurred. The CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee observing that AO had not disputed the fact that the expenditure was accrued during the previous year and was revenue in nature. It was not explained in the assessment order as to how this expenditure can be said to be of enduring nature


Nicholas Piramal India Ltd Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: June 30, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 194C, 201 - Whether the CIT(A) is justified in affirming the order of the AO whereby the AO has treated the assesee as defaulter under section 201 for not deducting TDS on the payments made to a manufacture from whom the goods were purchased on principal to principal basis.


M/s Survidhi Financial Services Ltd Vs ACIT, New Delhi (Dated: May 14, 2010)

Income tax – Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) – Whether the CIT (A) erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on disallowance of loss arising on account of purchase and sale of units covered u/s 94(7) of the Act.


M/s Samrat Holdings Pvt Ltd Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: July 9, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 57 - Whether, expenses incurred by the assessee, who is a lessee, in defending proposed enhancement of rent with a view to avoid future recurring outflow of funds are revenue expenses or capital.



Late Sri C M Bopaiah Vs ACIT, Bangalore (Dated: May 21, 2010)

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 132, 271(1)(c) - W hether assessing officer on being satisfied regarding concealment of income by the assessee can initiate penal proceedings and subsequently levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.


Addl.CIT, New Delhi Vs M/s Rollatainers Limited (Dated: June 11, 2010)

Income Tax - Sections 28(iv), 41(1) - Writing off of credit balances - Whether in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of T.V.Sundaram (2002-TIOL-239-SC-IT) a receipt when credited to P&L account changes its character and hence the AO was justified in taxing the benefit arising to an assessee who has written off his outstanding liability of term loan in the nature of cash credit limit used by the assessee for day to day operations.



Business Standard Digital Ltd Vs ACIT, New Delhi (Dated: June 9, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 271(1)(c) - Penalty on inadmissible genuine expenses - Whether penalty is leviable where there is possibility of two views vis -à-vis nature of expenses admitting that expenses are not bogus.


Asian Paints Ltd Vs Addl.CIT, Mumbai (Dated: March 23, 2009)

Income Tax Act, 1961- Section 251, 254 - Whether the power of appellate authority CIT(A) is co-terminus with that of an assessing officer u/s 251 of the Act - whether it can admit assessee's claim without filing revised return of income.


DCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s ICICI Web Trade Ltd (Dated: June 25, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 40A (2) - Whether the AO is correct in invoking the provisions of section 40A (2) and disallowing the payments made by the assessee without recording that the payments made were excessive and unreasonable having regard to the market value of services.


ITO, Mumbai Vs M/s Savvion India Pvt Ltd (Dated: June 25, 2010)

Income tax - Sections 10B, 271(1)(c) - whether penalty survives even after disallowance of deduction is deleted.


Barry-Wehmiller International Resources Pvt Ltd Vs ITO, Chennai (Dated: June 4, 2010)

Income Tax - Sections 10A, 147, 263 - Whether an entry drooping Sec 147 proceedings in the order-sheet tantamounts to be an order of AO, and the CIT has power to review such an order.



ACIT, Davangere Vs Shri A Balarama Reddy (Dated: May 20, 2010)

Income Tax Act 1961 - Section 40(a)(ia), 68, 194C - Whether the assessing authority is justified in revising the assessments of the assessee after making various additions towards unexplained cash credits, unexplained investment, labour charges, non-deduction of tax at source, diffe rence in work -in-progress and disallowances of other expenses u/s 40(a)(ia).


Crisil Limited Vs Addl.CIT, Mumbai (Dated: June 25, 2010)

Income tax – Sections 10A, 263 – Whether the CIT was justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act when the facts stated in the return and the documents furnished do not provoke doubt in a reasonable mind to examine the matter further


ITO, New Delhi Vs Simran Singh Prop (Dated: April 9, 2010)

Income Tax – Deduction u/s 10B - The assessee is engaged in the business of export of incense sticks/cones, wooden holders and miscellaneous handicraft items - the machinery was initially installed in the DTA - later, the assessee obtained the status as 100% EOU – claims deduction u/s 10B - AO took the view that EoU was not set up using new plant and machinery - it was a case of transfer of old machineries - assessee in this regard referred to the CBDT Circular No. 01/2005 in support of its claim – AO rejected assessee's submission and denied the claim – On appeal, the CIT(A) relied on the CBDT's circular and referred to the decision of ITAT in the case of Tech Books Electronics Services (P) Ltd. (2006-TIOL-107-ITAT -DEL) and Anita Synthetics (P) Ltd. and accordingly directed the AO to allow the claim for the export of Incense sticks only.


M/s Jatayu Software Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, Bangalore (Dated: May 12, 2010)

Income Tax - Sections 36(1)(vii) & 36(2) - Whether Assessee was entitled to deduction of bad debts written off in books of account


Modipon Ltd Vs DCIT, New Delhi (Dated: February 5, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 43B - Payment of contribution of employees to PF and ESI - AO disallows the claim of the assessee vis -à-vis employees contribution of PF and ESI beyond the prescribed time in the relevant acts - CIT(A) allows the claim since the payments have been made before the due date of filing of return - Revenue files appeal to ITAT - Held that the issue is now fully covered by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Alom Extrusions.


Super Spinning Mills Limited Vs ACIT, Coimbatore (Dated: March 30, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 154 - Whether the assesee by way of rectification application is entitled to claim a deduction of the nature of disputed liability after the expiry of four years and that too in a year in which the same is not crystallized.



ITO, Chennai Vs Shri M Sankar (Dated: March 12, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 194C - Whether the ratio of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors ( 2002-TIOL-588-SC-IT ) will be applicable for interpretating the purport of the second proviso of sub-section 3 of Sec 194C and hence the second proviso of subsection 3 of section 194 is retrospective, even though the same was inserted, not to remove any hardship as was present in section 43B.


ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s ACC Ltd (Dated: March 31, 2010)

Income Tax - Sections 115JB, 143(3), 147 - Whether reopening of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) is permissible on the same set of facts without referring to any new/fresh material.


M/s Aditya Birla Power Co Ltd Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: February 8, 2010)

Income Tax – Section 37(1) –Whether the amount shown as expenses recoverable from various companies be allowed as revenue expenditure though not debited to P&L account.


M/s Rachit Investments Ltd Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: March 23, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 28(iv) - Capital gain or business profit - Can it be said that the provisions of section 28(iv) are equally applicable in the case of sale and purchase of shares and hence the AO was correct in taxing the difference of intrinsic value and par value by referring to the provisions of section 28(iv) and ignoring that the share purchased were shown as investment in the books.


M/s Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated: April 30, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 14A, 44 - Whether CIT(A) was justified in approving the view of the AO in not excluding the profit from sale of investments while computing the income - Whether CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance of expenses u/s.14A.


ACIT, Mumbai Vs Shri Sachin P Adiacha (Dated: March 30, 2010)

Income Tax - Whether CIT (A) was justified in estimating gross profit @ 0.8%?


ACIT, Chennai Vs Shri R Sabik Ahmed (Dated: March 25, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 40(a)(ia) - Whether CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made by AO


M/s G F Securities Vs DCIT, Chennai (Dated: May 26, 2010)

Income tax Act 1961 – Sections 36, 40A(ia), 194A(1) – Whether the assessee can claim deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act pertaining to a debt undertaken by the assessee under an assignment agreement with its sister concern when the debt was transacted to a third party in its ordinary course of business.


M/s Top Security Limited Vs Addl.CIT, Mumbai (Dated: June 30, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 37 - Whether the AO has correctly disallowed the expenses incurred by the assessee, while setting up a new line of business, prior to the setting-up of the business.


M/s JSW Steel Limited Vs ACIT, Bangalore (Dated: May 31, 2010)

Income tax Act, 1961 - Section 43A, 115JB - Whether forwards contracts are covered under section 43A and whether losses arising from such contracts can be claimed as deductions in computing taxable income - whether an assessee can be held liable for a deferred tax liability on a retrospective basis by reason of amendment u/s 115JB and be subject to interest u/s 234B - Whether the payments made towards creation of a reserve set aside for ascertained capital expenditure can be deducted while computing book profits u/s 115JB. Also see analysis of the Order


M/s Bio-Vet Industries Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated: Februrary 25, 2010)

Income Tax – Section 80IB – Basis of apportionment of common expenses - Whether the common expenses viz Administrative, Selling and Financial expenses have to be bifurcated on the basis of turnover of different units or on the basis of number of units produced in different units for the purpose of deduction u/s 80IB


Dy.CIT, Thane Vs M/s Vastushree Estate Pvt Ltd (Dated : April 30, 2010)

Income Tax – Section 132 – Search and Seizure - assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of development of a real estate project named “Lotus Court” at Pune - The premises of the assessee and its directors were searched - During the course of search, no asset was found at the business premises except for cash of Rs. 20,200, however, the same was not seized - Pursuant to search action, notices u/s 153A(a) of the Act were issued to the assessee in respect of AY's 1998-99 to 2003-04 and in response to the same the assessee filed return of income for the respective AY's - On the basis of seized material found during the course of search the AO concluded that on money was received by the appellant in respect of sale of residential flats, offices and shops and thus completed the assessments for seven AY by making certain huge additions on a common issue – On appeal, the CIT(A) allowed the appeals of the assessee in part by way of proportionately reducing the estimate of income on account of money. Further, the CIT(A) directed the AO to adopt the profit rate at 12.3% on the reduced receipts on account of on money

2010-TIOL-355-ITAT -HYD-SB

Rain Commodities Ltd Vs Dy.CI T, Hyderabad (Dated : July 2, 2010)

Income tax - Sections 45, 47(iv), 115JB - Whether in the absence of any provision for exclusion of exempted capital gain in the computation of book profit u/s 115JB, the assessee can exclude the same from the computation of Book Profit.



Shri Suresh Kumar T Jain Vs ITO, Bangalore (Dated : January 8, 2010)

Income Tax - Sections 41(1), 68, 147 - Whether AO has power to examine the genuineness of brought forward trade creditors under the provisions of section 68 - Whether, where assessee failed to prove the genuineness of brought forward trade creditors the amounts were to be added in the hands of the assessee.



Shri Ramakant Jha Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated : March 31, 2010)

Income Tax - section 158BFA(2) and 271(1)(c) - Whether CIT(A) was justified in confirming the penalty u/s 158BFA(2) and 271(1)(c).


ITO, New Delhi Vs M/s Shivani Merchant Bankers Pvt Ltd (Dated : April 30, 2010)

Income tax – Sections 68, 147 - Whether the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in assuming jurisdiction under section 147 on the basis of unsubstantiated information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department that the assessee had received some accommodation entries.


ACIT, Coimbatore Vs M/s Super Spinning Mills Ltd (Dated : March 25, 2010)

Income Tax - Section 36 - Whether the expenditure involved in the replacement of machinery in Spinning Mills is capital or revenue expenditure?


M/s Asea Brown Boveri Ltd Vs Addl. CIT, Mumbai (Dated : May 13, 2010)

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 147, 148, 263 – Whether the AO can issue notice u/s.148 for income escaping assessment on the same set of facts followed by the CIT for dropping the proposed proceedings u/s 263 by accepting the explanations offered by the assessee.


M/s Chiranjjeevi Wind Energy Ltd Vs ACIT, Coimbatore (Dated : March 30, 2010)

Income Tax – Section 80IB(2)(iv) – Determination of whether a business activity of “assembling” amounts to manufacturing for relief u/s 80IB - whether employment of temporary workers is enough to claim the relief.


M/s Varun Shipping Co Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated : January 13, 2010)

Income Tax – Sections 33AC, 271(1)(c) – Penalty – Whether for every demand penalty is an automatic consequence.

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ORDER...Rs.2 lakhs made in the SB. Account 10875 of one Sri B.V....

Documents

Transcript of INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ORDER...Rs.2 lakhs made in the SB. Account 10875 of one Sri B.V....