income tax appellate tribunal order tax appellate tribunal order ... mumbai railway vikas corpn ltd...

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ORDER

2016-TIOL-2377-ITAT-MUM

Dikson & Company Vs ITO (Dated: December 9, 2016)

Whether receipts on account of sale of land is to be treated as 'capital gains', when theassessee is not in the business of sale and purchase of lands - YES: ITAT

Whether the assessee is entitled to the indexation cost up to the date of transfer -YES: ITAT

Whether when the impugned transaction is not relating to any part of land but was inrelation to sale of rights of the assessee in entire land, then such assessee is entitledto indexed cost in relation to the entire land - YES: ITAT

2016-TIOL-2376-ITAT-KOL

DCIT Vs Narendra Kharka (Dated: October 5, 2016)

Whether when assessee had disclosed the interest income emanating out of banks ashis income in the return, then the said bank accounts could not be construed asundisclosed bank accounts - YES: ITAT

Whether where the investment is duly reflected in cash book of assessee and notcontroverted by revenue, then no addition is warranted - YES: ITAT


ITO Vs Sam P Toddywalla ( Dated: March 14, 2016)

Whether an owner of the disputed land which is leased out to a builder, is liable to paytax on the sale consideration which accrued directly to the builder from the sale offlats, when the builder has already been assessed to tax on the profit resulting fromsale - NO: ITAT


Ms Vaishali V Shah Vs ACIT ( Dated: October 28, 2016)

Whether income earned out of sale of shares can be treated as income fromspeculation business, merely upon his failure to produce sufficient evidences asdemanded by Revenue - NO: ITAT

2016-TIOL-2373-ITAT-PUNE

Thermax Social Initiative Foundation Vs ITO (Dated: December 22, 2016)

Whether deviation from past pattern can be allowed to consider corpus donation asincome which is based on presumptions - NO: ITAT

Whether a charitable trust can promote its charitable objects by giving donation toother charitable organizations and such donations would amount to application ofincome of the trust - YES: ITAT


Gopinath Ghorai Vs ACIT (Dated: April 29, 2016)

Whether the assessment made by AO u/s 143(3)/147 is independent and separatefrom the order passed u/s 143(3) - Whether the issue as to whether the amount paidby the assessee on account of lorry hire charges is in the nature of works contract ascovered by section 194C or in the nature of rent as envisaged u/s 194I is highly adebatable issue and the rectification of the same is beyond the purview of section 154.


Korn Ferry International Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: July 27, 2016)

Whether, once a stock option is granted to and exercised by the employee of theassessee, the liability in that option can be said to be ascertained and the cost isallowable in the year in which stock options were granted – Whether, if an assesseeenters into a deal which does not violate any provision of the Act of applicable to aparticular AY, the deal cannot be termed a colourable device, if it result in non-payment or lesser payment of taxes in that year.

2016-TIOL-2370-ITAT-JAIPUR

Madho Das Bangard Vs ACIT (Dated: July 14, 2016)

Whether the initiation of penalty can be sustained when the very basis of initiation ofpenalty has changed - Whether the penalty to be imposed on the basis of Section158BFA(2) is automatic.

2016-TIOL-2369-ITAT-AMRITSAR

MBD Printographics Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: June 13, 2016)

Whether interest expenditure can be disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii) where the impugnedadvance to the sister concern was made out of interest free funds available with theassessee - No: ITAT

Whether addition on account of sale of paper is justified where no discrepancy in thebooks of account was pointed out by the authorities below and each and everypurchase was backed by the vouchers - No: ITAT


Mumbai Railway Vikas Corpn Ltd Vs DIT (Dated: August 3, 2016)

Whether registration granted u/s 12A can be cancelled on the ground that theassessee has carried out activities that are not in accordance with its objects where themain object of the assessee is to develop coordinated plans and the railwayinfrastructure projects, integrate urban development plan for Mumbai with railcapacity, etc. - No: ITAT


Jessop And Co Ltd Vs CIT (Dated: August 3, 2016)

Whether non-service of show cause notice u/s. 263 is an irregularity which does notaffect the jurisdiction of the CIT u/s. 263 - Yes: ITAT

Whether order passed by AO is erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue wherethe AO did not make any enquiries before concluding the Assessment – Yes: ITAT

2016-TIOL-2366-ITAT-BANG

ACIT Vs ICICI Emerging Sector Fund (Dated: July 27, 2016)

Whether a trust cannot be taxed as an association of persons in respect of the incomewhich has already suffered tax in the hands of beneficiaries.

2016-TIOL-2365-ITAT-DEL

Jaipuria Infrastructure Developers Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: June 27, 2016)

Whether in the absence of any incriminating material found during the searchconducted u/s 132 of the Act assessment u/s 153A can be completed by makingaddition – No: ITAT


ITO Vs Jay Kumar Khemka (Dated: August 10, 2016)

Whether penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed on not including the particular incomein the return of income for the relevant year when the assessee voluntarily rectifiedthe mistake besides he declared the income in the return of next year.


ACIT Vs Giiava India Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 26, 2016)

Whether the deduction u/s 10B is to be allowed in respect of manufacturing unit as thesaid deduction is unit specific and not assessee specific.

Whether the income enhanced after the statutory disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is to beconsidered as the eligible profits of the undertaking while computing deduction u/s10B.


Sumangal Gems Vs ACIT (Dated: March 31, 2016)

Whether penalty u/s 271(l)(c) can be imposed when the addition u/s 2(22)(e) being adebatable issue - NO: ITAT


ACIT Vs Gourangalal Chatterjee Construction Pvt Ltd (Dated: January 20,2016)

Whether depreciation and interest, which are otherwise deductible in the ordinarycourse of assessment, remain the same legal character, even where the profit ofassessee is determined on percentage basis - Whether the CIT(A) was right inestimating the net profit @ 2.5% of contract receipts of the assessee as against 8%adopted by the AO when the Depreciation and interest was allowable as deductionfrom the estimated net profit of 8% by the AO and the resultant profit figure was 2.1%of contract receipts.


ACIT Vs Noor Enterprises (Dated: April 12, 2016)

Whether disallowance can be made u/s 40(a)(ia) when TDS which was deducted by theassessee from the transport payment was deposited before the due date as per section139(1) - Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.50 lakhs u/s

68 when it is clear from the finding of the CIT(A) that the confirmation was neitherexamined nor verified by the AO nor by the CIT(A).

2016-TIOL-2359-ITAT-AHM

Hakmichand D And Sons Vs ACIT (Dated: July 29, 2016)

Whether reopening of assessment after four years from the end of the relevantassessment year is sustainable in law where neither there is any mention of assessee'sfailure in disclosing all the relevant primary facts in reasons recorded for issuingnotices nor record suggests that assessee failed in this aspect and assessee furnishedall the relevant details and the issue of allowability of payments to IRCTC and TDsrecord were considered by AO and allowed as business expenditure u/s 143(3) - No:ITAT

2016-TIOL-2358-ITAT-HYD

ITO Vs Padamati Laxma Reddy (Dated: January 22, 2016)

Whether on failure to substantiate the loans and advances received from customers,no person can be allowed to claim benefit u/s 44AD - YES: ITAT


ITO Vs Padamati Laxma Reddy (Dated: January 22, 2016)

Whether on failure to substantiate the loans and advances received from customers,no person can be allowed to claim benefit u/s 44AD - YES: ITAT


Rekha Ravindra Khinvasara Vs ITO (Dated: August 26, 2016)

Whether interest expenditure can be disallowed, when there is a direct nexus betweenthe OD limits raised by the assessee and its utilization for making interest freeadvances - YES : ITAT

2016-TIOL-2356-ITAT-NAGPUR

Dipak Babarao Arode Vs ITO (Dated: August 9, 2016)

Whether transaction of purchase and sale of any property can be considered asadventure in the nature of trade when no agricultural operation being carried out in thesaid property, the efforts to convert the said land into non agricultural land was made,the advance from the eventual purchaser was taken even before the said property hadbeen purchased.


Elcon Drugs And Formulations Ltd Vs ITO (Dated: August 2, 2016)

Whether penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) was justified when the assessee has notdisclosed the correct information and has filed inaccurate particulars of income by notdisclosing/showing the work in progress - YES: ITAT

2016-TIOL-2354-ITAT-MAD

ACIT Vs Elights Techno Park Pvt Ltd (Dated: May 6, 2016)

Whether the assessee was justified in disclosing the income from letting under theHead Income from Business when letting of the properties was in fact the business ofthe assessee.


ITO Vs E Saraswathi Kumari (Dated: July 1, 2016)

Whether the disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) can be made when it was impossible forassessee to deduct tax on the said commission/expenses which were in fact deductedby the said MF, the said MFD has filed its return of income and offered these incomesand the amounts are not payable at the end of the year - Whether when the loanswere advanced for part of the year, the disallowance of the interest for the full yearwas justified.


East India Holdings Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: September 23, 2016)

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in sustaining the addition only to the extent ofunaccounted investment in the transaction on the ground that the entire value cannotbe brought to tax but the profit element on such unaccounted transactions along withunaccounted investment are subject to tax - Whether when the CIT(A) failed to bringany cogent evidence based on the documents that the assessee is in the practice ofthe making unaccounted transactions for purchase & sale of the goods then theaddition sustained was justified


DCIT Vs National Insurance Co Ltd (Dated: August 5, 2016)

Whether the provision made by the assessee for liabilities incurred but not reported(IBNR) as per the regulations framed by Insurance Regulatory Development Authority(IRDA) based on a scientific calculation with a proper rationale could only be termed asascertained liability and hence the same need not be added back by treating the sameas an unascertained liability while computing the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act.


Orient Paper And Industries Ltd Vs JCIT (Dated: August 10, 2016)

Whether disallowance u/s 14A can be made where it is found that the investment inshares is made by the assessee out of its own funds and there is no utilization ofborrowed funds for making such investment - No: ITAT.

Whether disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) can be made if the concerned payee has taken intoaccount the relevant sum for computing income in his return of income furnished u/s.139 and has paid tax due on the income declared in such return for the year underconsideration - No: ITAT

Whether assesse is entitled to claim depreciation on railway siding where the assesseehas exclusive right over the said Railway siding and part of such premises is belongingto assessee and the capital cost of such siding - Yes: ITAT

Whether assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on HT lines and feeder bay wherethe assesse is not the owner of HT lines and feeder bay and the assessee handed overHT lines and feeder bay to electricity board but assessee was drawing electricitythrough said HT lines and feeder bay for its business purposes - Yes: ITAT


Olivia Apparels Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: June 24, 2016)

Whether the requirement of the recording of the satisfaction, before initiating theproceedings u/s 153C is sine qua non.


Sponge Iron India Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: August 10, 2016)

Whether depreciation claimed on SAF of can be allowed when the assets of the SAFplant have not been put to use during the A.Y under consideration, for the purpose ofassessee's business - Whether when the AO has not brought anything on record toshow that the actual borrowings were made only for the purpose of making advance tothe sick company, in absence of such findings, interest disallowance on notional basisis justified? Whether the loss written off due to write off of stock can be termed asunascertained liabilities.


ITO Vs Vijay M Vimawala (Dated: April 6, 2016)

Whether when the date of transfer of seized material by the A.O. of the searchedperson to the A.O. of the assessee was 03.11.2006 then the assessment for A.Y. 1999-2000 was barred by limitation.


ACIT Vs Vip Gorwth Fund Pvt Ltd (Dated: March 4, 2016)

Whether addition u/s 68 on account of share application money be made where theassessee had provided necessary details including the ward/circle where the shareapplicants/ investing companies were assessed to income tax and discharged the onuscast on it and all the amounts were received through Banking channels by way ofcheques issued in favour of the Assessee Company towards share application moneyand the shares were allotted as per the documents furnished before ROC and the AOhad not found any discrepancy in the books of account maintained by the assessee –No: ITAT


Vipul Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: July 14, 2016)

Whether disallowance under section 14A of the Act can be made where assessee hadnot earned any exempt income during the year under consideration - No: ITAT

Whether the provisions of Section 41(1) are applicable where the assessee has notremitted the credit balances in its books of account and has not obtained any benefit inrespect of such trading liability - No: ITAT


Virag Deshpanday Developers Vs ITO (Dated: February 29, 2016)

Whether the requirement for claiming deduction under section 80IB(10)(b) to developand construct the housing project on a plot area which has minimum area of one acreis fulfilled where the assessee had developed its housing project on a plot of landmeasuring 4000 sq. mtrs. – No: ITAT


Larsen And Toubro Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: December 2, 2016)

Whether an addition is warranted for non deduction of TDS on payment of bankguarantee charges/internet charges - NO : ITAT


Mouri Tech Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (Dated: December 2, 2016)

Whether an entity is entitled for exemption u/s 10B, when it has approval granted to itby STPI which can be deemed to be a valid approval by Board appointed on behalf ofCentral Government - YES : ITAT

2016-TIOL-2341-ITAT-VIZAG

Y V Ramana Vs CIT (Dated: December 2, 2016)

Whether assumption of jurisdiction by CIT u/s 263 is sustainable, when assessee hasfurnished details of show cause notice issued by AO and the AO has conducted detailedenquiry and also examined the issues pointed out by the CIT – NO: ITAT

Whether a cryptic order which does not specifically contains discussion on theconcerned issue, can by itself be a ground to conclude that AO has not examined thematter in detail – NO: ITAT

Whether for purpose of effective transfer of shares, the physical transfer by delivery ofshare certificate along with duly signed & stamped share transfer form is essential –YES: ITAT


Sri Dolarrai Hemani Vs ITO (Dated: December 2, 2016)

Whether the transaction between an assessee and the broker can be held to be bogusand sham, just because the broker did not appear before the AO in response to thesummons u/s 131, but had furnished the requisite details called for thereon – NO:ITAT

Whether assessee's claim of LTCG can be denied by treating the transaction as sham,where the broker had confirmed the fact regarding share purchase & sale transactionsof assessee with the broker – NO: ITAT

Whether gift received by assessee can be treated as his undisclosed income, when thereceipt of gift is duly supported by the required documents and assessee had dulyproved the identity, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the donor –NO: ITAT

2016-TIOL-2339-ITAT-RANCHI

Smt K Rohini Vs ITO (Dated: September 15, 2016)

Whether the Revenue authorities were justified in coming to the conclusion that landwhich was sold by the assessee even being agricultural land, is eligible to Capital Gainwhen the Revenue authorities did not confront the assessee by furnishing the report ofthe inspector of Income Tax in respect of cultivation of the land nor did they call uponthe assessee to explain as to how before notification of the land for acquisition theassessee was carrying on agricultural operations.


Kumudchandra D Mehta Vs DCIT (Dated: September 7, 2016)

Whether estimation of gross profit is sustainable where no cogent explanation wasbrought on record by the assessee to substantiate substantial rise in the job workcharges – YES: ITAT


DCIT Vs K B Mehta Construction Pvt Ltd (Dated: September 5, 2016)

Whether the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee u/s145 on the ground that GP rate has fallen in comparison to previous year is tenable inlaw when there is a sharp increase in the sale which is more than double compared tothe preceding year and the GP rate has decreased due to increase in the cost of directmaterial and labour compared to earlier years - NO: ITAT

Whether the benefit of depreciation can be denied when the assets like motor car ispurchased for valuable consideration and is debited as assets in the books of theassessee - NO: ITAT


Shri Hitesh S Mehta Vs ACIT (Dated: October 17, 2016)

Whether a conscious decision of the Tribunal to grant greater justice to both theparties and no mistake whatsoever had crept in the afore-stated order of the Tribunalcan be rectified within the mandate of Section 254(2) - NO: ITAT


Late Dr KCG Verghese Vs ACIT (Dated: July 1, 2016)

Whether penalty proceedings can initiated against the legal representative, merelybecause it was not able to trace the source of investment - NO: ITAT


ACIT Vs Sri M Pajani Adaicalam (Dated: March 31, 2016)

Whether penalty can be levied under section 271D and 271E where assessee hadrepaid loans in cash on more than one occasion and there was no justification of anybusiness interest or exigency to violate the provisions of section 269SS and section269T - Yes: ITAT


ACIT Vs Sun Rays (Dated: March 22, 2016)

Whether AO is justified in taking a new issue and decide it on merits in set asideproceedings - No: ITAT

Whether rejection of books of accounts is sustainable, where the Assessee is regularlymaintaining its books of accounts and has claimed deduction u/s 80HHC on the basis ofcertificate from the auditors and has also got his financial statement audited u/s 44AB

and no major defects were pointed out in the books - NO: ITAT


ACIT Vs Kohli Housing And Development (Dated: February 29, 2016)

Whether no disallowance u/s 14A can be made in a year in which no exempt incomehas been earned or received by the assessee - YES: ITAT

Whether without establishing any nexus between the expenditure incurred andinvestment, Rule 8D cannot be invoked - YES: ITAT

Whether where appellate authorities himself has recorded a finding of fact thatamounts advanced to companies were out of the internal accruals/ redemption ofMutual Funds and not out of borrowed funds, then no addition is warranted - YES:ITAT


ITO Vs Mr Krishna Yadav Potail (Dated: April 6, 2016)

Whether section 69A applies only where an assessee is found to be the owner of anymoney, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article which is not reflected in the books ofaccount and he has no explanation for same - YES: ITAT


Smt Lalita Agarwal Vs DCIT (Dated: February 12, 2016)

Whether reopening of assessment is sustainable in law where the reasons recorded atthe time of original reassessment proceedings and the re-assessment proceedings arethe same and all the facts stated at the time of recording reasons for re-opening theassessment were available before the AO at the time of completion of assessment u/s143(3) itself - No: ITAT

Whether disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) on account of Long term capital gain onsale of shares is sustainable where the assessee had already shown the entire incomeof long term capital gain on sales of Shares in the returns of income itself and claimedthe deduction u/s 10(38) which were accepted by the AO - No: ITAT


Shri Kmalesh Kumar Maheshwari Vs DCIT (Dated: March 17, 2016)

Whether where no borrowed funds were utilized by the assessee while making theinvestment then no disallowance u/s 14A is warranted - YES: ITAT


Kodi Ananda Rao Vs CIT (Dated: March 31, 2016)

Whether where issue of estimation of net profit being a debatable issue the AO hastaken one of the possible views and there is no loss of revenue, then it cannot be heldthat the order passed by AO is erroneous - YES: ITAT

Whether where the AO after examining assessee's books of accounts, has rejected thesame and resorted to estimation of net profit, then there is no occasion for the CIT to

revise the assessment order for estimation - YES: ITAT

Whether action u/s 263 is warranted, when neither the order of AO is erroneous norprejudicial to the interest of Revenue - YES:ITAT

Whether when issue of unsecured loans and capital introduction by the assessee werenot examined by AO at the time of completion of assessment, then the assessmentorder passed by AO in respect of unsecured loans and capital introduction is erroneous- YES: ITAT

2016-TIOL-2327-ITAT-RAJKOT

Mahendra And Company Vs ITO (Dated: September 9, 2016)

Whether nominclature of "commercial vehicle" can deprive assessee of depreciation asprovided under third proviso to Sec 32 i.e., on such percentage on the written downvalue, as may be prescribed? NO: ITAT

2016-TIOL-2326-ITAT-INDORE

Mahendra Builders And Developers Vs ITO (Dated: July 4, 2016)

Whether deduction u/s 80IB(10)(a) can be allowed if completion certificate is issued bylocal authority after cut off date i.e., four years from the end of the F.Y. in which theconcerned housing project was approved by the Local Authority? NO: ITAT


DCIT Vs Machino Finance Pvt Ltd (Dated: September 9, 2016)

Whether income from sale of shares held for purpose of investment will fall under headof "capital gain"? YES: ITAT

Whether expenses incurred for earning dividend income not taxable u/s 14A can bedisallowed if borrowed funds are not utilized for investment? NO: ITAT

2016-TIOL-2324-ITAT-KOCHI

The Madai Cooperative Rural Bank Ltd Vs ITO (Dated: September 9, 2016)

Whether exemption u/s 80P can be denied on ground of belated filing of return orbeyond period stipulated u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or u/s 142(1) or sec 148 ? NO: ITAT

Whether agriculture society exempted u/s 194(3)(viia) from deduction of tax frominterest paid on deposits will be is required to deduct TDS on interest paid? NO: ITAT


Smt Punit Kaur Dhupia Vs ITO (Dated: July 13, 2016)

Whether order of Tribunal can be recalled where there is an error apparent on recordof the order - Yes: ITAT


Shri Mahendra Kumar Agrawal Vs ACIT (Dated: July 5, 2016)

Whether Sec 40(a)(ia) will be applicable & deduction will not be allowed on the amounton which assessee has failed to deduct TDS, if person/resident to whom such amountis paid has paid due tax on it? NO: ITAT

Whether addition is justified without giving an assessee any oppertunity to cross-examine the materials found during enquiry & statements of deponents? NO:ITAT


Sumit Kumar Sanei Vs ITO (Dated: February 29, 2016)

Whether addition u/s 68 on account of unexplained cash credit is sustainable whereassessee had received the monies from companies and immediately the same werepaid towards tax dues of the said companies through online banking facility – No: ITAT


ACIT Vs Suman Jain (Dated: March 30, 2016)

Whether addition on account of bogus purchases can be made in the hands ofassessee, in case he was treated as proprietor of his concern and not in her individualcapacity - No: ITAT

Whether deduction of interest on personal capital against profit of proprietorship firm isallowable, where the loan amount borrowed by such firm in individual capacity wasutilized for earning profit from its proprietorship concern - Yes: ITAT


Kiritibhai Ramanlal Patel Vs DCIT (Dated: February 29, 2016)

Whether interest can be leveid u/s 234 if assessee has made bonafide mistake as tolimit of investment, which was notified after the end of prescribed time limit forcomputation of LTCG - NO: ITAT


Kishorebhai Devishibhai Iyava Vs ITO (Dated: February 1, 2016)

Whether expenditure claimed against any income can be allowed as deduction ifassessee fails to prove that expenditure was incurred exclusively for purpose ofearning said income - NO: ITAT


ITO Vs Kanigolla Sudheer (Dated: March 31, 2016)

Whether CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition on basis of additional evidence &remand report of AO - YES: ITAT


ITO Vs Sri Karnati Venkata Subba Reddy (Dated: August 12, 2016)

Whether addition of cash credit can be made u/s 68, when books of accounts have

been rejected by the AO - NO: ITAT


Khurshid Alam Contractor Vs ITO (Dated: April 27, 2016)

Whether net profit of 5% is reasonable for computation of net profit on supply ofbuilding material - YES: ITAT

Whether remuneration to partners will be computed according to partnership deed asagainst net profits, if deed provides higher remuneration - YES: ITAT


ITO Vs Kilachand Devchand And Co Pvt Ltd (Dated: April 7, 2016)

Whether addition made in income, on account of accrual of rent is justified whenassessee has not actually received any rent - NO: ITAT

Whether deduction of payable rent can be allowed, when TDS on it has not beendeducted by assessee - NO: ITAT

Whether legal & professional fees paid for defending reputation & good name ofcompany can be allowed as deduction - YES: ITAT

Whether addition of accured interest from fixed deposit is justified, when amount waslying in escrow fund with solicitors of assessee - NO: ITAT


Ganpati Enterprises Vs DCIT (Dated: July 18, 2016)

Whether AO was right in treating the assessee as 'AOP' and disallowing the claim ofsalary & interest paid to partners? NO: ITAT

Whether assessee can deduct interest paid on delayed payment of security/licence feepaid? YES: ITAT

Whether 'Excise consumption money' charged for irregularities was rightly disallowed?NO: ITAT


Gripwell Tools Industries Vs ADD CIT (Dated: August 22, 2016)

Whether foreign travel expenses can be allowed as deduction, even if business is notactually transacted during such visit - YES: ITAT


Gujarat State Warehousing Corporation Ltd Vs ITO (Dated: August 8, 2016)

Whether assessment can be reopened after period of 4 years if there is no suppressionof information by the assessee - NO: ITAT


ITO Vs ILA Saurabh Dalal (Dated: June 17, 2016)

Whether shares/securities held for more than 30 days can be treated as businessincome? NO: ITAT

Whether AO was right in making addition u/s 69 when the assessee was only co-ownerof the property? NO: ITAT

Whether disallowance u/s14A is justified if AO failed to make nexus between interestfree funds & exempt income? NO: ITAT


ITO Vs K L Kapoor Company Wines Ltd (Dated: August 3, 2016)

Whether an assessee is required to apply TCS provisions from June 01, 2003 as peramended Section 206(c) - NO: ITAT


Dr Amol Ramchandra Pawar Vs ITO (Dated: October 31, 2016)

Whether in absence of any other evidence, the admission made by assessee instatement recorded u/s 133A has no evidentiary value and no addition can be mademerely on the basis of said statement - YES: ITAT


Chaudhari Cars Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (Dated: October 7, 2016)

Whether where assessee had initially defaulted and has not complied with the noticesu/s 142(1), then subsequent filing of complete information by the assessee does notabsolve him from his default - YES: ITAT


Vave Infotainment Network Ltd Vs ADDL CIT (Dated: August 10, 2016)

Whether penalty cannot sustain if no satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedingsu/s 271D and 271E of the Act has been recorded in the order of assessment - YES:ITAT


DCIT Vs Verseon India Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 24, 2016)

Whether all expenditure relating to the maintenance of the office are allowablebusiness expenditure irrespective of fact whether the business activity is carried out ornot and whether any income is derived therefrom - YES: ITAT

Whether case is fit to remand if the additional evidences are produced which should beexamined by the revenue: YES: ITAT

Whether the penalty can be sustained if the very basis for the penalty proceedingsstands disallowed: NO: ITAT


Sac Steel Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd Vs JCIT (Dated: July 4, 2016)

Whether the brought forward loss from the earlier years can be set off against theincome from "capital gains" u/s 72.


Sintex Industries Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: March 18, 2016)

Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO was in error in allocationof director's remuneration, directors' traveling expenses, audit fees, computer expenseand security charges for calculating profit of Captive Power plant for deduction u/s. 80-IA of the Income Tax Act - Whether, for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IC,financial charges cannot be allocated in the ratio of sales, on the ground that the saleshave no direct influence on the interest expenditure.


Slk Properties Vs ITO (Dated: March 18, 2016)

Whether order levying penalty is valid where it is not clear from the notice u/s 274 thereasons for levying of penalty as to whether it is for concealment of income or forfurnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - No: ITAT


Rithwik Projects Pvt Ltd Vs JCIT (Dated: July 4, 2016)

Whether where an assessee has obtained a contract through a valid agreement,though not directly with the State Government, it shall be deemed to have entered intoan agreement with the Government, for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IA ofthe Act - Whether, where the Government has given an approval for setting-up of aninfrastructure facility, even though there is no specific agreement with theGovernment, the assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA of the Act for suchfacility.


Ruchi Bakers Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (Dated: July 8, 2016)

Whether the CIT was justified in invoking jurisdiction u/s when the CIT was not sureabout the aspect as to whether the order of the AO is erroneous or not.


Regal Shoes (I) Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: July 25, 2016)

Whether the CIT (A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs 5,70,214 made bythe AO on account of alleged bogus purchases when the copy of statement recordedwhich was relied upon by the Revenue was not forwarded to the assessee nor crossexamination was offered to the assessee and the Assessee claims that it has dulysubmitted the details with the AO whereby proper reconciliation of purchases wasreflected and the GP ratio in the impugned A.Y is also stated to be better incomparison to last three years.


ITO Vs Renuka Philip (Dated: July 22, 2016)

Whether the levy of penalty cannot be automatic and addition in assessmentproceedings cannot be a gateway for levy of penalty - Whether, on facts andcircumstances of the case, the CIT (Appeals) erred in directing the AO for allowingdeduction of cost indexation value of building.


Parvatiben Damji Shah Vs ITO (Dated: July 5, 2016)

Whether assessee has a sufficient cause for not filing appeal within time limitprescribed u/s 253(3) where due to the change in the constitution of firm of CharteredAccountants who were handling the case of the assessee, the appeal was filed late -YES: ITAT


ITO Vs Rachna Corporation (Dated: June 29, 2016)

Whether for deduction u/s 80IB(10) it is necessary that the assessee must be theowner of the land.


Real Trade Technologies Vs PR CIT (Dated: July 22, 2016)

Whether the assessment order can be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to theinterests of the revenue, if the view taken by the AO is one of the possible views.


ITO Vs Purushottam Das Agarwal Huf (Dated: May 31, 2016)

Whether reopening of assessment is justified where the assessee has failed to disclosefully and truly material facts during assessment proceedings in the original assessment- YES: ITAT

2016-TIOL-2293-ITAT-CHD

ACIT Vs Vardhman Threads Ltd (Dated: July 1, 2016)

Whether section 80IC(8)(v) and (ix) which define "initial assessment year" and"substantial expansion" respectively can be interpreted to mean that initial assessmentyear for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IC is the year in which the assesseecompletes investment of more than 50% of the opening book value of plant andmachinery.


VR Ramathilagam Vs ITO (Dated: January 20, 2016)

Whether reference made by the AO u/s 142A to DVO is bad in law without rejectingthe books of accounts of the assessee? Whether the opinion of the DVO per se is notinformation for the purposes of reopening assessment u/s 147.


Valiant Glass Works Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: July 27, 2016)

Whether if, the very validity of the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act is heldto be without jurisdiction, then the original assessment proceedings will be deemed to

be concluded and attained finality – Whether the subsequent reassessmentproceedings u/s 147 of the Act thus, if, being held as non-est or void abinitio, the AOwill have no jurisdiction in the fresh assessment proceedings u/s 153A to make anyaddition in respect of issues already concluded in original assessment in the absence ofany incriminating material found during the course of action.


Uma Shankar Agarwal Vs DCIT (Dated: January 20, 2016)

Whether penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable where in the show cause notice AO had notstruck off the irrelevant portion as to whether the charge against the Assessee is"concealing particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income" andthe satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is notdiscernible from the order of assessment - No: ITAT.


Suresh Karmakar Vs DCIT (Dated: June 3, 2016)

Whether the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) is justified when the show cause noticeu/s. 274 is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty issought to be imposed


DCIT Vs United Bank Of India (Dated: September 2, 2016)

Whether the AO was justified in invoking jurisdiction u/s 154 when the order of the AOdid not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record and even otherwisethe issue was highly debatable


Www.Chanakyanetstudy.Com Vs DCIT (Dated: August 12, 2016)

Whether when the assessee has made a provision for warranty on estimate basiswhich is higher than the actual payments in the two subsequent years, then the AOshall decide the reasonable amount of estimated liability which has subsequently beenpaid by the assessee


ACIT Vs S And S Power Switchgear Ltd (Dated: December 11, 2015)

Whether the waiver of principal and interest by the assessee cannot be treated asdeemed profit u/s 41(1) or perquisite u/s 28(iv) of the Act, on the ground that as theamount earned is neither revenue receipt nor intended to be on revenue account.


Suguna Charitable Trust Vs ITO (Dated: June 29, 2016)

Whether merely carrying on business for and on behalf of the trust and applying theprofits of the same for the object of the trust entitle the Assessee for exemption u/s.11(4)& 12.


S Motilal Plywood House Vs DCIT (Dated: June 10, 2016)

Whether addition u/s 68 was justified when the Assessee claims that he had not beengiven opportunity to produce the parties


Runwal Developers Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: August 11, 2016)

Whether, when the assessee has taken advantage of 30% repair allowed by thestatute as a standard deduction against the house property income, the assesseeshould have suo motu apportioned certain expenses to the rental income anddisallowed the same in its computation of income while filing the return of income.


Ganeshlall Jay Kumar Vs JCIT (Dated: April 6, 2016)

Whether the proforma value of the goods received on consignment as declared for thepurpose of VAT return is only realisable value and not the actual value


Elite Enterprises Vs ITO (Dated: August 26, 2016)

Whether the AO was justified in considering the system of accounting followed by theassessee as mercantile when in substance the system of accounting followed by theassessee was cash basis and further consistent treatment of expenditure of kistpayment has been given and accepted over several years on payment basis.


G B Rubber Products Vs DCIT (Dated: August 31, 2016)

Whether the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction on account of its incomearising from windmill power generation without adjusting the notionally broughtforward losses of earlier years.


Choudhary And Brothers Vs ACIT (Dated: September 28, 2016)

Whether for the purpose of estimating the N.P rate the past result will mean theimmediate past result i.e. result for the A.Y. 2005-06 or the estimation is required tobe done based on the earlier results available i.e. for the A.Y. 2004-05 and 2005-06 -Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing asum of Rs. 6,63,750/- on account of depreciation when the Assessee failed to point outthe bill showing that it was purchased prior to 30/03/2006 and was put to use by theassessee in the year under consideration - Whether once the books are rejected andthe income of the assessee is estimated, no separate addition can be made u/s 68.


Deccan Grameena Bank Vs DCIT (Dated: August 3, 2016)

Whether Government securities acquired by the assessee Bank in compliance with theprovisions of the Banking Regulation Act have to be treated as stock-in-trade of thebusiness of the Bank - Yes: ITAT

Whether deduction towards provision for bad and doubtful debt u/s 36(1)(viia) can be

allowed where the assessee has not made any provisions for bad and doubtful debts -No: ITAT

Whether broken period interest on Government securities is allowable as businessexpenditure - Yes: ITAT


Chirag Harmanbhai Patel Vs DCIT (Dated: August 10, 2016)

Whether imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was justified when acceptance of additionof Rs.27,58,493/- and deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) u/s 271AAA gives way to theassessee to claim that the cash surplus generated out of acceptance of disallowance ofexpenses of Rs.27,58,493/- is deemed to have been used towards unexplained sourceof income in the shape of unexplained cash credit on which penalty has been imposedu/s 271(1)(c).


Chandraprabhu Gramin Bigar Vs ITO (Dated: August 26, 2016)

Whether a cooperative society is entitled to deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) on the interestincome of fixed deposits kept with banks other than cooperative banks/societies – Yes:ITAT


Cci Chambers Co-Op Hsg Sco Ltd Vs ITO (Dated: June 30, 2016)

Whether when a society was to receive an amount in excess of Rs.25,000/-, i.e., theamount permitted by the notification issued by the State of Maharashtra, then suchcontributions will get the benefit of principle of mutuality even if the amount isreceived from the member - YES: ITAT


Chandrakant N Patel Vs ITO (Dated: July 11, 2016)

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in affirming the AO action making addition in thehand of the Assessee of unexplained investments u/s 69 in purchase of agriculturalland amounting to Rs.83,13,850/- when the co-purchaser admittedly was not entitledto purchase agricultural lands and the assessee has been showing agricultural income


ACIT Vs Caliber Point Business Solutions Ltd (Dated: September 28, 2016)

Whether the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.10A on the work outsourced to othercompany provided the said company is also located in STPI unit?

Whether the appellate authorities have the power to admit the additional claim madeby assessee even though the same has not been made in return of income

2016-TIOL-2272-ITAT-LKW

ITO Vs Cane Development Council (Dated: July 28, 2016)

Whether where the assessee received grants for specific purposes from thegovernment, non government and foreign institution etc. and these grants were to bespent as per terms& conditions of the project grant and the amount remained unspentat the end of the year, got spilled over to the next year, can it be considered as incomeof the assessee


Adani Port And Special Economic Zone Ltd Vs ADD CIT (Dated: August 23,2016)

Whether an assessment order can be subject to revision jurisdiction u/s 263 when thesame is subjected to appeal and it stands adjudicated - NO: ITAT

Whether an issue can be subject to revision jurisdiction u/s 263 when the Revenue hasnot brought any material on record to demonstrate that the view taken by the A.O wasimpermissible and was contrary to law or was upon erroneous application of legalprinciples - NO: ITAT


Burdwan Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: September 2, 2016)

Whether disallowance of the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of loss oninvestments or diminution in the value of securities was justified? Whether when abusiness liability has arisen in the accounting year, deduction is allowable although theliability may have to quantified and discharged at a future date


Avt Mc Cormick Ingredients Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: December 8, 2016)

Whether disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) can be made, where the assessee had depositedemployee's contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI after due date as prescribedunder the relevant Act, but before the due date of filing of return under the IncomeTax Act – NO: ITAT


Mack Soft Tech Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: December 16, 2016)

Whether income from letting out of property is to be treated as "income frombusiness", where the main business of assessee is creation of infrastructure and lettingout of same to earn income therefrom – YES: ITAT


Samta Khinda Vs ACIT (Dated: November 29, 2016)

Whether addition on basis of unaccounted income from undisclosed sources iswarranted, when one of the sale transaction shown in the document was unsigned &undated and no corroborative evidence of any investment made by assessee wasfound – NO: ITAT

Whether addition towards unexplained jewellery u/s. 69B is permissible, where theaddition was made on basis of assumptions only - NO: ITAT


Sri Adusumilli Loka Satya Ratna Kumar Vs ITO (Dated: November 25, 2016)

Whether assumption of jurisdiction by CIT u/s 263 is justified, when the issue hypedby the CIT was thoroughly examined by the AO during assessment proceedings - No:ITAT

Whether an assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 54F on the investment made inpurchase of residential house property, even if such property was purchased in thename of his son - YES: ITAT

Whether addition towards long term capital gain upon transfer of land from assssee tohis father can be made, where the source for investment in construction of property isout of sale proceeds of property in the name of assessee's father and the assessee isonly a GPA holder for the limited purpose of execution of sale deed - NO: ITAT


Adani Gas Ltd Vs PR CIT (Dated: December 2, 2016)

Whether assumption of jurisdiction by CIT u/s 263 is justified, when the AO hasaccepted the assessee's claim of depreciation on goodwill after making enquiries,proper verification and application of mind – NO: ITAT


Tirupati Construction Vs CIT (Dated: February 3, 2016)

Whether when the ground of revision u/s. 263 is not mentioned in the show causenotice issued under the said provision, that issue cannot be the subject matter ofrevision proceedings in the order passed u/s. 263 - YES: ITAT

Whether where the payees have included the subject mentioned receipts in theirbooks/returns of income, then second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) should have to beinvoked and no disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) deserves to be made - YES: ITAT


ACIT Vs Tata Industries Ltd (Dated: September 28, 2016)

Whether where the professional fees though disallowed as business expenses, but thesame have been allowed as expenses while computing taxable amount of capitalgains/loss and no material facts were concealed by the assessee while makingdisclosure, then no penalty could be levied in such circumstances - YES : ITAT

Whether when disallowance on basis of which penalty was levied is deleted by the ITATbeing the fact finding authority, no penalty would survive for levy - YES : ITAT

Whether where the assessee has submitted in detail that the expenses on account ofprocessing fees got crystallized during the year and it pertained to the year underconsideration, no penalty can be levied unless the claim of expenses is found to benon-genuine or non-bonafide - YES : ITAT


ACIT Vs Shri Kaushik C Parikh (Dated: January 1, 2016)

Whether profits from sale and purchase of shares is assessable as capital gains wherethe assessee is a regular investor and has shown the income of Short Term CapitalGain/Loss and Long Term Capital Gain /Loss from the sale of shares which is being

shown consistently since preceding several years and the same was accepted in thepreceding years by the Revenue and the assessee has valued the investment in sharesat cost in his books of accounts and not 'cost or market value' whichever is lower andthe assessee has not borrowed any funds for buying and holding the shares - YES:ITAT


ITO Vs Sri Kalin Dutta (Dated: June 10, 2016)

Whether adhoc disallowance on account of carriage inward expenses can be disallowedwhere AO before disallowing the expenses has failed to consider the claim of theassessee of such expenses in the earlier years to arrive at the view whether theexpenses claimed are more or less and had not pointed out any flaw in the books ofaccounts - No: ITAT

Whether non service of notice u/s. 133(6) can be the sole ground for makingdisallowance when there was no flaw in the books of accounts, there was no adversecomments in the audit report duly certified by the Chartered Accountant, theconfirmation received from the bank regarding the payment made to the parties inresponse to the notice u/s. 133(6) - No: ITAT

Whether addition on account of bogus sundry creditor can be made where AO failed toverify the payment made to the parties through banking channel from the party andAO failed to reconcile the amount of creditor's by way of issuing notice u/s. 133(6) tothe AO having jurisdiction over the party - No: ITAT


K R Santha Vs DCIT (Dated: June 24, 2016)

Whether when no incriminating material is found at the time of search to suggest thatthe assessee had shown non-agricultural income as agricultural income, arbitrarilydisallowing the same by the lower authorities by treating it as income from othersources can be justified -

Whether the amount realized by the sale of plots represents income from business orcapital gains -


Hitesh Madhukant Sevak Vs ITO (Dated: July 21, 2016)

Whether AO can reject the books of accounts under sec. 145(3) of the Act on the mereground that the purchases were unverifiable and without pointing any otherobservation or defects in the books of accounts - Whether assessee's claim of credit ofTDS can be denied by AO if the same is claimed pursuant to return filed by theassessee in response to notice issued under sec. 148.


DCIT Vs Hirenbhai K Patel (Dated: June 8, 2016)

Whether, if the quantum addition has been deleted by the appellate authority, the AOcannot levy penalty under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the assessee is an individualwho has filed his return of income for Asst. Year 2002-03 on 9.8.2002 declaring totalincome at Rs.27,07,370/-. Assessment was completed under sec. 143(3) of the Act byassessing the income at Rs.4,97,27,848/- after making following additions on accountof interest income on transfer of DDBs of Nirma Ltd., short term capital gain ontransfer of DDBs of Nirma Ltd., accrued interest on DDBs of Nirma Ltd. and accruedinterest on OFCPNs of Nirma Indus. Ltd.


ITO Vs Shri Hiren Shantilal Doshi (Dated: August 3, 2016)

Whether any addition/disallowance is required to be made on account of purchasesfrom the 11 parties which were not verifiable, and only the profit embedded in thetransaction should be taxed.


ITO Vs Daga Transport Agency (Dated: August 3, 2016)

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on estimate basis on theground that AO did not do what he should have done without remanding the matter tothe AO for verification of facts at his ends.


Shri D Tamilrajan Vs JCIT (Dated: June 30, 2016)

Income Tax - Whether disallowance u/s 40(A)(3) for cash expenditure incurred morethan Rs 20,000/- on various dates can be made when the nature of business of theassessee being laying of roads, building bridges and culverts in the remote village andpurchase of sand, jelly from the local vendors and lorry brokers who are illiterate anddoes not have permanent place of Business and they deliver the material at theworking sites of assessee during odd hours in remote areas - Whether totaldisallowance of expenses being not supported by vouchers is justified when there existexceptional circumstances of the working conditions of the firm and the nature ofexpenditure incurred relates tea, coffee, freight charges and diesel expenditure.


Shri D Devadass Vs ITO (Dated: April 7, 2016)

Whether exemption u/s 54F can be exclusively be claimed by the assessee and itcannot be clubbed or applied to the blood relation or family members - Whetheraddition can be made in respect of unexplained income without any evidence orenquiry.


Concept Management Consulting Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: August 24, 2016)

Whether for the period prior to 01.06.15, fees u/s 234E in respect of defaults infurnishing TDS statements, could be levied in intimation u/s 200A.


Case New Holland Construction Equipment India Pvt Ltd Vs JCIT (Dated:September 21, 2016

Whether where facts are identical from year to year, there has to be uniformity andconsistency in treatment - YES: ITAT

Whether when the historical trend indicates that a large number of goods were beingmanufactured in the past and the facts show that defects existed in some of the itemsmanufactured and sold, then provision made for warranty in respect of such goodswould be entitled to deduction from the gross receipts u/s 37 - YES: ITAT


Cartier Leaflin Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (Dated: September 9, 2016)

Whether the CIT was justified in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 on the ground that noevidences were furnished before the AO and the AO passed the order without verifyingthe same, when exhaustive details and documentary evidences were submitted by theassessee before the AO and the assessment order was framed after examining theexhaustive details and evidences - NO: ITAT


ITO Vs Bijaya Kumar Sahoo (Dated: September 9, 2016)

Whether AO was justified in denying Assessee claim u/s 80 JJA and making additionu/s 68 on the ground that no business was carried by the assessee when there wasbusiness in the existence and the consistent claim of deduction u/s 80JJA was allowedto the Assessee and the question of the disallowance of deduction or nonexistence ofthe business has never been raised in the earlier years - NO: ITAT


Uluberia Coke Oven Plant Vs JCIT (Dated: August 26, 2016)

Whether the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the arbitrary disallowance of thepayment of commission made to the sister concern - Whether on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the arbitrarydisallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the payment of carriage inward expense byway of re-imbursement for transportation of goods on the alleged ground that theassessee firm had failed to deduct tax at source on the said sum u/s 194C(1).

2016-TIOL-2248-ITAT-PATNA

Dr Udayan Narayan Vs ACIT (Dated: August 22, 2016)

Whether the unsigned notice is not a curable irregularity u/s 292BB but is a nullity -YES: ITAT


Trident Services Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: August 12, 2016)

Whether an assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on goodwill - YES: ITAT

Whether where assessee has written off certain amounts in its books as bad debts andthe debt has been considered as income in the earlier years, it is clear that theassessee has fulfilled the conditions prescribed in section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) andaccordingly he is entitled to claim deduction under said provision - YES: ITAT


T Ramesh Vs DCIT (Dated: June 23, 2016)

Whether income from sale of coconuts does not fall under the category of agriculturalincome for the purpose of income tax - Whether the cash seized by the Departmentpursuant to search can rightly be said to be assessed to tax as unaccounted income ifno explanation was forthcoming for keeping cash in home by the assessee.


Late Sunil D Gulati Vs JCIT (Dated: August 19, 2016)

Whether additions which are not based on the seized materials at the time of search,but only on the basis of cash flow statement prepared by assessee irrespective ofcorrelation to search material can be justified - Whether, in the proceedings aftersearch in the assessment u/s.153A of the Act, addition should have nexus with seizedmaterial found at the time of search.


Somani Iron & Steels Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: February 26, 2016)

Whether addition u/s 41(1) can be made in respect of liabilities which have not beendebited to the profit and loss account – No: ITAT

Whether addition u/s 41(1) can be made in respect of liabilities which have not ceasedto exist and were not written back by the assessee itself - No: ITAT


Mahawar Iron Stores Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: April 11, 2016)

Whether the CIT was justified in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 when the AO has noteven made any attempt to make any enquiry before accepting the claim of theassessee and accepted the claim in a hurry manner without applying mind - YES: ITAT


Lalit Mohan Gupta Vs ITO (Dated: August 2, 2016)

Whether Circle rate prevailing at the time of agreement to sell has to be considered forapplying the provisions of section 50C when the ownership rights in the property werevested in purchaser vide agreement to sell and execution of sale deed was merely aformality - Whether section 54B mandates that the purchase of agriculture land has tobe made out of sale proceeds arising from sale of agriculture land.


Sports And Cultural Club Vs JCIT (Dated: September 23, 2016)

Whether all receipts of the assessee club except receipt from interest as well as rent isout of the purview of taxation on account of the doctrine of mutuality? Whetherinterest income and rental income cannot be said to be governed by the concept ofmutuality because the receipt is not from the members of the club.


DCIT Vs SPML Infra Ltd (Dated: August 24, 2016)

Whether the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act is available to developers who undertakesentrepreneurial and investment risk and not for the contractors, who undertakes onlybusiness risk - Whether merely because the assessee was paid by the Government fordevelopment work, it could not be denied deduction u/s 80-IA(4).


SPC Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: September 5, 2016)

Whether net profit applied by the AO not on the basis of the facts and material

available before him but on the basis that same net profit rate was applied in othercases related to the other assesses is sustainable in law - No: ITAT

Whether addition on account of alleged undisclosed investment and interest earned bythe assessee on such unaccounted investment made merely on the basis of a piece ofpaper impounded during the course of survey is sustainable in law- No: ITAT

Whether disallowance u/s 14A can be made where no exempt income is received orreceivable during relevant previous year - No: ITAT


ITO Vs Soosaiya Peter Educational Trust (Dated: September 7, 2016)

Whether running of a petrol pump is not incidental to the activity of education andtherefore the proviso to section 2(15) will apply - Whether the benefit of depreciationu/s 32 cannot be extended for arriving at the income of the trust u/s 11.


Sonpankhi Shares And Securities Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (Dated: August 3, 2016)

Whether strategic investment in group concerns for the purpose of control and not forearning dividend attracts disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D.


Shroff Textiles Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: June 28, 2016)

Whether disallowance of commission payment u/s 40A(2)(b) was justified when the AOhas not brought on record to establish colourable device in such payment, there isnothing on record that payment is against public policy, and there is also nothing onrecord that such payment have routed back to assessee in any manner - Whetherdisallowance of payment of transport charges was justified when no colourable devicehas been suggested by the AO with regards to these transports' payments and similartype payments have been made in assessment order for earlier year has not beendisturbed in any manner - Whether disallowance of amount paid for foreign tour wasjustified when revenue authorities failed to bring any material on record to establishthat it was a pleasure trip as same were undertaken by the said persons individually.


Sharan Hospitality Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: September 12, 2016)

Whether actual letting is the sine qua non where a reduction or remission in rent onaccount of vacancy occurs, and is thus to be taken into account - YES: ITAT

Whether the words "where the property is let" u/s 23(1)(b) and 23(1)(c) represents astate of actual letting and cannot be extended to a state of 'intended letting' and'Letting' - YES: ITAT

Whether where the property or part thereof was not let at all during the entireprevious year, no deduction for vacancy allowance is permissible - YES: ITAT


Shailendra Kumar Sharma Vs DCIT (Dated: February 24, 2016)

Income Tax - Whether AO was justified in making addition of Rs. 15,60,000/- as

assessee's own cash introduced from undisclosed source of income without any inquiryon the Assessee claim that he had received back cash from the seller - Whether theCIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 5 lacs and of not allowing openingbalance carried over from preceding assessment years when the Assessee beingDoctor keeping in view of that status of the assessee and income earned by him frommedical profession, there is possibility to save cash at residence.


Sashi Sadh Vs ITO (Dated: June 30, 2016)

Whether the claim of deduction u/s 10B on Duty drawback cannot be allowed from theeligible deduction u/s 10B of the Act.


ACIT Vs Sangeetha Jain (Dated: January 22, 2016)

Whether once the assessee has made a claim u/s 80-HHC and there is a delay inbringing sale proceeds within stipulated period, then the AO has neither vested powerfor allowing the further period nor can he deal with the same.


ACIT Vs Rajendra Ramavtar Jaiswal (Dated: February 11, 2016)

Whether Circular no. 21/20145 dated 10.12.2015 which prescribe monetary limit forfiling of appeals before the ITAT will apply to pending appeals -


Late Smt Sharda Devi Vs ITO (Dated: November 10, 2016)

Whether where AO has considered the net profit shown by assessee and assessed heron the basis on her return and sales as claimed, it is not open to the AO to doubt thesales made during the year - YES: ITAT

Whether where assessee is not maintaining books of accounts, as she is not liable tomaintain books of accounts as per provisions of section 44AF, then she cannot beforced to produce the books of accounts or sale bills - YES: ITAT


ITO Vs Padarti Venkata Rama Chandra Rao (Dated: September 16, 2016)

Whether adoption of the SRO value to substitute fair market value of the property, forthe purpose of computation of cost of acquisition of the property is justified - NO: ITAT


National Construction Company Vs DCIT (Dated: November 25, 2016)

Whether assessee can be said to have concealed its income, where assessee itself hadoffered to be assessed on income arrived at by estimation - No: ITAT


Nishi Engg Poultry Product Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (Dated: November 25, 2016)

Whether CIT can assume his revisional jurisdiction, where the assessee had filed all therequisite details before the AO on all the issues upon which the CIT wanted furtherverification and AO after being satisfied with the explanation furnished by assessee hascompleted the assessment - No: ITAT


Leora Jewellery Vs ITO (Dated: October 28, 2016)

Whether addition on account of balance sheet difference can be made, where theentries are reasonably explained - NO: ITAT

Whether exemption u/s 10AA is allowable in respect of the entire assessed businessincome and cannot be limited to the amount only as claimed by assessee - Yes: ITAT


Goenka Vasant Kumar Vs ITO (Dated: October 7, 2016)

Whether the interpretation of an issue favourable to the assessee deserves to beadopted, in cases of conflicting opinions of various High Courts - YES: HC


ITO Vs Sahyog Co-Op Credit Society Ltd (Dated: June 10, 2016)

Whether a cooperative society is entitled for exemption u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) on interestincome earned on fixed deposits with commercial banks and others - YES: ITAT

Whether where income derived is the amount of profits and gains of businessattributable to the activity of carrying on the business of banking or providing creditfacilities to its members by a co-operative society, then it is liable to be deducted fromthe gross total income under Section 80P - YES: ITAT


Rajesh J Thakkar Vs DCIT (Dated: July 28, 2016)

Whether merely because of the acceptance of agricultural income in earlier years doesnot automatically prove that the assessee is carrying on agricultural activity in thecurrent year - Whether if the assessee has not produced any relevant evidences todemonstrate and substantiate that agricultural activities was actually carried out by theassessee during the relevant previous year as stipulated and mandated u/s 2(1A) ofthe Act to fall and classified within the definition of agricultural income to be exemptfrom income-tax thereof u/s 10(1) of the Act, the same needs to be considered asincome from other sources.


DCIT Vs Sai Iron India Ltd (Dated: August 26, 2016)

Whether the sales tax liability is allowed in the year of the payment by virtue of theprovisions of section 43B - Whether when regular activity of the fund transfer showsthat the borrowed money has been utilized for part of the year by the assessee thenthe entire interest can be disallowed.


Rakesh Gupta Vs ACIT (Dated: July 26, 2016)

Whether when the total rental payment was less than Rs.1,20,OOO/- p.a. the TDSprovisions can be invoked.

Whether additions can be made on account of capital introduced of Rs. 10,00,000/-when the Assessee has been able to prove the genuineness of transaction and thecreditworthiness of the lender - Whether deletion of addition of Rs. 16,26,647/- madeby the AO on account of unexplained additions to Plant and Machinery was justifiedwhen the Assessee gave detailed break-up of the said addition along with relevantbills/vouchers.


Sandesh Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: August 22, 2016)

Whether the levy of FBT is justified when the expenditures considered by the Revenuefor the levy of FBT do not establish any employer-employee relationship.


ACIT Vs Sai Ram Builders (Dated: March 13, 2016)

Whether when the assessee has paid the taxes on the total undisclosed incomeadmitted in the revised return, before initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAAthen no penalty can be levied under clause (iii) of sub section (2) of section 271AAA.


Ram Avtar Sharma Vs ITO (Dated: August 23, 2016)

Whether presumption of ownership can be raised statutorily in favour of the revenueand against the assessee, in respect of section 69A merely on the basis of assessee’spossession when the Assessee was carrying on business as a Carrier of goods andnothing has been brought on record to suggest that the assessee is the owner of thegoods.


Rajesh Kumar Kaswan Vs ACIT (Dated: August 10, 2016)

Whether the Revenue was justified in rejecting the books of account of the assesseeand applied the gross profit rate at 1.50% when there was substantial decline in grossprofit rate in comparison to the preceding years - Whether when the book results ofthe assessee is not accepted and gross profit is estimated by the lower authorities thenthere is any further scope for making disallowance from scheme expenses debited inthe profit and loss account.


Samruddhi Developers Vs CIT (Dated: June 17, 2016)

Whether where a completion certificate is issued by the prescribed authority belatedly,then the assessee is eligible for the deduction u/s 80IB(10) - YES: ITAT.

Whether housing project of assessee can be considered as not complete merely ongrounds that completion certificate is issue by authorities with delay, inspite of legalevidence certifying completion of housing project on record - NO: ITAT

Whether where the interest and rent income is not derived from the project, then sameare not eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) - YES: ITAT

2016-TIOL-2215-ITAT-COCHIN

Sndp Yogam Vs ADIT (Dated: March 1, 2016)

Whether amendment to Section 12A w.e.f. 01.10.2014 is retrospective in operation -YES: ITAT


Pankaj Sumatilal Shah Vs ITO (Dated: June 8, 2016)

Whether demonstration of gift in capital account from such a donor is acceptable whoneither have any financial capacity nor any tangible relationship to motivate him tosurrender whopping amount irretrievably in favour of the Assessee - NO: ITAT


Paresh Dhanji Chedda Vs DCIT (Dated: July 15, 2016)

Whether a miscellaneous application filed beyond the period of 04 years can beentertained by the ITAT – No: ITAT


Pirmal Enterprises Ltd Vs ITO (Dated: July 15, 2016)

Whether on facts and circumstances of case, it would be correct to grant early hearingof case and stay is limited only to the passing of the assessment orders u/s 143(3)read with Section 263 of the Act and that too on or before 30th November 2016 - YES: ITAT


Rajendra Agarwal Vs DCIT (Dated: September 15, 2016)

Whether the assessment dated 27.2.2002 was barred by limitation in terms ofprovisions of section 158BE(1)(b) when the date of conclusion of search cannot betaken as 14.02.2000 and has to be either 17.12.1999 or 23.12.1999 especially whennothing was found and seized on 14.2.2000 and only the prohibitory order u/s 132(3)were vacated.


Siddhartha Tantia Vs DCIT (Dated: June 1, 2016)

Whether for the purpose of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) it has to be clear as to thelimb for which it is levied and if the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable


Smita Chatterjee Vs DCIT (Dated: June 1, 2016)

Whether the assessee can be given the benefit of exemption u/s. 10(10C) to theextent of Rs. 5 lacs even if the scheme of VRS of HSBC was not in conformity with Rule2BA - Whether non-consideration of the judgment of Calcutta High Court and the ThirdMember decision of this Tribunal automatically results in mistake apparent on record,which can rectified u/s 154.


DCIT Vs Mukeshkumar And Co (Dated: August 29, 2016)

Whether when the assessee has duly discharged his primary onus of placing on recordthe confirmation letters, PAN details, cheque details, bank transactions through whichthe loans taken then no addition u/s 68 can be made.


Maruti Dyechem Industries Vs JCIT (Dated: August 9, 2016)

Whether entire unutilized balances of various taxes was required to be included in thevaluation of cl.stock u/s145A(b) when the assessee is following exclusive method ofaccounting whereby it does not debits the taxes paid to the purchases, consumption ofstock and the aforesaid method of accounting of taxes has been consistently followedby the assessee and have been accepted by Revenue

Whether disallowance in respect of commission payment was justified when theassessee has not placed any material on record by which it could be demonstrated thenature of services rendered by those parties to the assessee


Mono Herbicides Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (Dated: October 19, 2016)

Whether exparte order passed by CIT(A) without giving an opportunity to the assesseefor hearing, deserves to be remitted for re-adjudication - YES: ITAT


Shakeel Ahmed Imtiaz Shaikh Vs ITO (Dated: October 19, 2016)

Whether where the assessee has furnished the copies of sales bills of gold ornamentsand has also explained the reason which compelled him to sell the jewellery, noaddition can be made to assessee's income on account of sale proceeds of jewellery -YES: ITAT


Sheetal Ranwala Vs ACIT (Dated: October 20, 2016)

Whether capital gains arising on sale of shares, can be assessed as business income,when the holding period for major portion of shares is reasonable and the volume ofsale is also not huge - NO: ITAT


Jyoti Sanwal Vs ITO (Dated: December 8, 2016)

Whether an additional opportunity of filing Form 15G/15H before the CIT(A) can begiven, if the assessee has failed to file the same due to unawareness about the correctjurisdiction - YES: ITAT - Case Remanded: CHENNAI ITAT


Deepali Shashank Tanksale Vs ITO (Dated: November 9, 2016)

Whether in the absence of any material on record, any addition can be made forunexplained deposits in loan account u/s 69 - NO : ITAT - Assessee's appeal allowed:PUNE ITAT


ITO Vs Fortune Interfinance Pvt Ltd (Dated: March 18, 2016)

Whether loss from share dealing can be set off against the derivative income where theassessee had treated the entire activity of purchase and sale of shares whichcomprised of both delivery based and non-delivery based trading as one compositebusiness before the application of deeming provision contained in Explanation toSection 73 of the Act - Yes: ITAT

Whether disallowance u/s 14A can be made where AO had invoked the provision ofSection 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules without recording thesatisfaction that the assessee's books of account are not showing the correctexpenditure incurred in relation to dividend income - No: ITAT


GV Madan Mohan Reddy Vs ITO (Dated: March 23, 2016)

Whether reopening of Assessment after 4 years was justified when while recording thesatisfaction, the AO has not given any finding that there is failure on the part ofassessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment -Whether a notice under sec. 148 in violation of section 151(1) is without jurisdictionaffecting the validity of the assessment order itself, hence, cannot be considered to bean irregularity curable under sec. 292B.


Ghasiram Shyamsunder Chowdhary Vs ITO (Dated: May 24, 2016)

Whether rejection of books is sustainable where assessee had maintained properquantitative records and no major discrepancy was observed by Assessing Officer inthe book results of the assessee - No: ITAT

Whether provisions of section 194C are applicable where the individual sumpaid/credited is less than Rs.20,000/- or aggregate of the total sum paid/credited isless than Rs.50,000/- - No: ITAT

2016-TIOL-2198-ITAT-AGRA

Hardevi Keshwani Vs DCIT (Dated: April 5, 2016)

Whether the condition of section 153C can be held to be satisfied in the absence of therecording of satisfaction by the AO of the searched person before initiating proceedingsagainst third person under sec. 153C.


Golam Mostafa Vs ITO (Dated: April 22, 2016)

Whether the base used by the CIT(A) for working out the peak credit balance wasappropriate when the CIT(A) has not considered the withdrawal of the date used forworking out the peak credit balance and Secondly the combined peak credit balancewas not considered for the working of peak credit balance.


Formative Fashions Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: May 12, 2016)

Whether the Assessee is entitled to claim additional depreciation on embroiderymachine - Whether State Government Interest Subsidy can be considered as capitalreceipt.


Gautam Kumar Mitra Vs DCIT (Dated: May 27, 2016)

Whether the disallowance under sec. 14A is justified when no expenditure has beenincurred and claimed to earn exempt income - Whether when the AO has followed theprocedure available to him under law and the view taken by following such procedurecan be a subject under review under sec. 263.


Firoz Tin Factory Vs ACIT (Dated: January 22, 2016)

Whether gain arising on sale of land which was held for less than 36 months isassessable as short term capital gain – Yes: ITAT

Whether expenses incurred for obtaining valuation report in order to ascertain themarket value of property can be considered to be expenses incurred in connection withthe transfer of land – No: ITAT

Whether the expenses incurred on soil testing is connected with the sale transactionand hence should be allowed as expense incurred in connection with transfer of land –Yes: ITAT


ITO Vs Harijibhai P Vastrapara (Dated: March 4, 2016)

Whether the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made on account of LTCG whenthere was no loss to the Revenue and also the capital gains have been offered by theconcerned other parties in their returns of income.


Hemendra R Merchant Vs ACIT (Dated: February 4, 2016)

Whether assessment order for the AY 2007-08 is sustainable in law when the basis onwhich the assessment of AY 2007-08 was made by the AO has been set aside by theSettlement Commission and all the matters are now restored to the file of the AO.


Hilala Ahmed Baktoo Vs ITO (Dated: February 19, 2016)

Whether the order of the CIT(A) was justified when the CIT(A) has not given anycomments in respect of admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A and haspassed order without considering the facts brought on record by the assessee.


Hiranandani Foundation Vs ADIT (Dated: May 27, 2016)

Whether the pharmacy shop is an integral part of the hospital and the same is not hit

adversely by the conditions specified in the provisions of section 11(4A).


ADDL CIT Vs Mumbai International Airport Pvt Ltd (Dated: November 30,2016)

Whether expenditure incurred towards operation and management of the Airport, isallowable as revenue expenditure – Yes: ITAT Whether depreciation is allowable on theamount paid on account of upfront fee – Yes: ITAT Whether disallowance made byinvoking the provisions under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is sustainable where AO did not recordany satisfaction about the correctness of the claim or otherwise having regard to theaccounts of the assessee – Yes: ITAT Whether Passenger Service Fee-SecurityComponent collected by Airport can be taxed in their hands, merely because the samehas been offered to tax during assessment, irrespective of correct position of itstaxability in accordance with law – No: ITAT Whether the amount of Passenger ServiceFee-Security Component collected by the assessee company on behalf of MOCA as perthe relevant regulations for the purposes of meeting security expenses can becharacterised as income in the hands of the assessee company and made liable to taxin its hands as per provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 – No: ITAT

Whether runway, taxiways is a part of plant and machinery entitled to depreciation @15% – Yes: ITAT


Vibhadeep Investments And Trading Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: October 28, 2016)

Whether long term capital loss on sale of equity shares would be allowed to be carriedforward for future set off – Yes: ITAT


Mylan Laboratories Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: October 21, 2016)

Whether if the reasons recorded for reopening are not considered in the actual orderfor making additions, the proceedings initiated u/s 147 is liable to be treated as bad inlaw - YES: HC

2016-TIOL-2186-ITAT- HYD

Prapalsha Agro Ltd Vs ITO (Dated: October 28, 2016)

Whether CIT is justified in invoking section 263 on ground of absence of enquiry by AOinto the valuation of closing stock, when the cost of the purchase was apportioned andadjusted in the selling price and the leftover of the stock was valued as per marketprice and hence there was no loss to the revenue – NO: ITAT

2016-TIOL-2185-ITAT- INDORE

Bhupendra Singh Rajendra Singh Vs JCIT (Dated: October 17, 2016)

Whether addition u/s 69 on account of bogus purchase from unexplained sources canbe made, when the assessee has filed complete details showing purchases effected byit and AO has not doubted the bank transaction – No: ITAT


Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: September 16, 2016)

Whether stay application can be allowed when additional demand in dispute is basedon that decision of CIT(A), which is already stayed by Tribunal and pending for hearing- YES : ITAT


UB Air Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: November 25, 2016)

Whether where bills for purchase and confirmations from creditors in respect ofoutstanding balances were never furnished by assessee, addition made u/s 41(1)deserves to be sustained - YES: ITAT


Tractors And Farm Equipment Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: September 30, 2016)

Whether Revenue is correct in computing disallowance under the second limb of Rule8D(2) when there is no direct expenditure relating to exempted income - YES : ITAT


Jubilee Hills Education Society Vs ADIT

Whether when the surplus generated by an educational institute is ploughed back foreducational purposes, can it still be said that such institute exists for 'the purpose ofprofit' - NO: ITAT - Assessee's appeal allowed : MUMBAI CESTAT


Thermax Social Initiative Foundation Vs ITO (Dated: September 16, 2016)

Whether stay of demand can be allowed when assessee has prima facie good case inits favour - YES : ITAT


Excel Engineers Vs JCIT (Dated: November 25, 2016)

Whether disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) can be made where the assessee has remittedpayments to the site-in-charge/supervisors who in turn made payments to thelabourers or contractors below the limit prescribed for tax deduction u/s 194C - NO:ITAT

Whether disallowance u/s 40A(3) can be made where the suppliers of assessee hadduly acknowledged the receipt of monies in their accounts and the payments wereforced to be made in cash for procuring the materials at different sites situated inremote villages – No: ITAT


Adani Enterprise Ltd Vs PR CIT (Date: December 2, 2016)

Whether dissenting opinion of the Pr. CIT from jurisdictional AO regarding allowabilityof rate of depreciation, can be assumed as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, so asto invoke provisions of Section 263 - NO: ITAT

Whether issues exclusively dealt with by AO after making necessary enquiries andproper application of mind, can be treated as erroneous for invoking revisionaljurisdiction u/s 263 - NO: ITAT


Fiberfill Engineers Vs ACIT (Dated: February 25, 2016)

Whether assessee is enititled to deduction u/s 80IC where assessee was involved inthe production an article which has different utility in commercial sense - Yes: ITAT

Whether assessee can be denied deduction u/80IC on the ground that the return wasfiled belatedly where assessee has fulfilled all the conditions for claiming deduction u/s80IC - No: ITAT


Dharmidevi Kanaiyalal Suthar Vs ITO (Dated: September 22, 2016)

Whether the DVO was justified in considering the rate of the land on the date saledeed was executed instead of the rates when agreement to sale was entered into andthe possession was delivered.


Dhanashree Mahila Gramin Vs ITO (Dated: August 26, 2016)

Whether a cooperative credit society is entitled to deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) on theinterest income earned from surplus funds deposited with with various banks otherthan cooperative banks/societies - Yes: ITAT

Whether the addition made u/s.40(a)(ia) will automatically qualify for deductionu/s.80P where the income of the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s.80P - Yes: ITAT


ACIT Vs Bhanuprasad T Trivedi (Dated: July 11, 2016)

Whether the intention of the assessee at the time of the purchase of shares isparamount and if the assessee has clear intention of being an investor and showing theshares as investment then surplus arising out of the transactions resulting into profitwas in the nature of STCG - Whether the assessee has successfully discharged theonus cast upon him by virtue of Section 68. When documentary evidences show thatthe identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction and the capacity of thelender have been successfully established by the assessee - Whether the mode ofacquisition would be a factor to decide the nature of transaction.


ACIT Vs Bhagyoday Construction (Dated: July 7, 2016)

Whether assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80IB(10) where even though the title ofthe lands had not passed on to the assessee but the assessee had undertaken thedevelopment of housing project at its own risk and cost and the land owner hadaccepted only the full price of the land and nothing further and the entire risk ofinvestment and expenditure was that of the assessee - Yes: ITAT.


DCIT Vs Bhagirath Agarwal (Dated: May 27, 2016)

Whether when the assets sold by, the assessee had been listed out in differentSchedules and Annexures, the consideration had been specifically assigned to the saleof immovable property , Separate consideration had been assigned to the sale ofmovable properties including vehicles and properties then can it be considered asslump sale as construed in section 50B for a lump sum amount of consideration.


ACIT Vs Benud Behari Dutta (Dated: April 13, 2016)

Whether addition on account of undisclosed closing stock can be made where theassessee had offered the difference in stocks of jewellery in the succeeding assessmentyear and had proved his bonafide by offering the same in the return filed withoutretracting the statement and paid taxes thereon - No: ITAT


DCIT Vs Prof Bastiram H Jajoo (Dated: July 7, 2016)

Whether the assessee was trading in shares and the capital gains can be considered asbusiness income of the assessee when the assessee has clear intention of being aninvestor and showing the shares as investment and the history of assessments of theassessee shows that only during the impugned A.Y, the A.O. has taken a stand thatthe assessee is trading in shares -


ITO Vs Barrows Blue Bells School (Dated: August 31, 2016)

Whether when Form 10 and Form 10B were duly submitted for accumulation of incomeu/s. 11(2) before completion of assessment proceedings, addition can be made -Whether the depreciation is allowable even on assets where the assessee has claimed100% deduction towards capital expenditure at the time of acquiring the assets.


Banwari Lal Jain Vs ITO (Dated: August 11, 2016)

Whether initiation of reassessment proceedings is sustainable in law where theAssessing Officer has not reopened the assessment merely on the basis of the DVOreport which was received by it after the completion of original assessmentproceedings but reopened the assessment on the basis of the provision of section 50C- Yes: ITAT

Whether for taking action u/s 147 the ‘reason to believe' can be based on the basis ofthe material available with the AO even at the time of making the assessment providedthe prima facie material belong to the assessee and apparently relates to theassessment year concerned - Yes: ITAT


Balaji Agro Industries Vs ACIT (Dated: August 19, 2016)

Whether when the details supplied by the assessee are not found to be incorrect orerroneous or false, then the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied - YES: ITAT


Baiju Trading And Investment Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: August 23, 2016)

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in enhancing the business income of the Assesseewithout giving notice u/s 251(2) to the Assessee.


Baba Educational Welfare Society Vs ITO (Dated: February 18, 2016)

Whether merely not carrying of vigorous activities of the trust at the time ofregistration per se can be detrimental for registration of the trust u/s 12AA where theobjects are charitable - Whether at the stage of granting registration u/s 12A, theDIT(E) has to satisfy himself about the objects of the institution and genuineness ofthe activities and is not required to look into the utilization of fund, commercial natureof activity etc. at this stage.


Atul Ltd Vs ITO (Dated: September 20, 2016)

Whether when the view adopted by the Revenue authorities which was upheld by theTribunal was that by mere installation of turbines, the assessee did not install a newindustry, since turbines themselves would not be sufficient for power then can theTribunal rectify its order on the issue of deduction u/s 80IA in the light of Judgment ofGujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd which left this question open to be judged casespecific.


Ashwani Kumar And Sons (huf) Vs ITO (Dated: March 15, 2016)

Whether when the possession of the property has been taken back by the seller onaccount of nonpayment of part of the consideration can save capital gain in the handsof the assessee when subsequently the same agreement was honoured - Whether theassessee being HUF was not entitled to deduction u/s 54B for the AY 2012-13.


DCIT Vs Shri B Sudhakar Pai (Dated: June 30, 2016)

Whether the land would fall under the exclusion clause (iii) of section 2(14) where theland was held by the assessee for a very short period of time and the intended futureuse was for non-agriculture industrial purpose - No: ITAT


ITO Vs Ayisha Fathima (Dated: August 17, 2016)

Whether merely because an agreement of sale has not been registered, whichotherwise is in nature of agreement referred in Sec. 53A of the Transfer of Property Actcannot be taken out of ambit of Sec 2(47)(v) of the Act when parting of the possessionof immovable property has already taken place - Whether mere inclusion or proximityof land to any Special zone without any infrastructure development thereupon orwithout establishing and proving that the land was put into use for nonagriculturalpurposes by the assessee does not and cannot convert the agricultural land into non-

agricultural land - Whether the profit motive of the assessee in selling the land withoutanything more by itself can never be decisive to say that the assessee used the landfor non-agricultural purposes.


Ashokbhai H Jariwala Vs ACIT (Dated: August 22, 2016)

Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the AO was justified in makingaddition of cash found during search u/s 69 of the Act.


Shri Anil Mahavir Gupta Vs ACIT (Dated: August 31, 2016)

Whether the scope of assessment u/s 153A of the Act envisages additions, which areotherwise not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search -Whether no addition could be made in respect of the assessment that had become finalin the event no incriminating material was found during the course of search.


Ascent Finechem Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: July 7, 2016)

Income Tax - Whether that CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal of theAssessee without going into the merits of the issue before him - Whether the assesseeclaim of depreciation needs to be accepted when the purchase of machinery being usedfor the purpose of business of the assessee has not been doubted by AO.


Ashish P Patel Vs ACIT (Dated: August 11, 2016)

Whether a mere disclosure of additional income at the end of the assessee wouldautomatically give rise to an assumption that money, bullion or assets were foundduring the course of search - No: ITAT


Al-hind Exports Vs ITO (Dated: March 15, 2016)

Whether addition made u/s 68 was justified when the manner in which the return ofincome was filed, statement of affairs were prepared and amounts were introduced inthe books of assessee does not commensurate with the income shown by the lenders -Whether when the payments are made to the agents of foreign shipping lines then nodisallowance is called for u/s 40a (ia) for non-deduction of tax at source.


ITO Vs Dr Anisur Rahman (Dated: March 21, 2016)

Whether addition u/s 68 can be made in respect of Gift when the source andcreditworthiness of the donor is proved and the monies have been transferred throughregular banking channels - Whether addition u/s 68 can be made when the Assesseehas proved source of source - Whether a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-, being the amounttransferred from two minor daughters' bank account to the bank account of theassessee, could be added as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 when it is not the case ofthe AO that the assessee had chanellised his undisclosed income in the bank account

of the two minor daughters and had received it back in cheques from them.


Amarshiv Construction Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: August 26, 2016)

Whether deducted of an amount of Rs.33,72,737/- from the net profit arrived at as perP&L account was justified when this amount represents retention money/securitydeposits retained by the persons for whom the assessee had undertaken contract workduring the year - Whether there should be material to justify the conclusion that anypart money by the assessee in a year to which interest has been paid had beendiverted for non-business purpose.


A Menarini India Pvt Ltd Vs PR CIT (Dated: August 31, 2016)

Whether the CIT was justified in resorting to revisionary powers u/s 263 when theRevenue has not brought any material on record to demonstrate that the view takenby the A.O was an impermissible view, or was contrary to law or was upon wrongapplication of legal principles - NO: ITAT

Whether the section 220(2) comes into play only in a case where there is failure on thepart of the assessee to pay the amount specified as tax payable in a notice of demandissued u/s.156 - YES: ITAT

2016-TIOL-2152-ITAT-RANCHI

Abhay Enterprises Vs ACIT (Dated: Sepember 16, 2016)

Whether the estimation of net profit at 8% made by the AO was justified when therevenue had not brought any material on record by way of comparable cases to justifythe adoption of net profit rate of 8% and the past history of the assessee showsadoption of 6% as net profit which had been accepted by this tribunal - Whetherinterest income on fixed deposits can be treated as business income when the variousdepartments were holding lien on the same till the review of the satisfactoryperformance of the assessee in his contract job.


ACIT Vs Shri Rahul Kumar Saraf (Dated: October 19, 2016)

Whether addition for unexplained cash credit u/s 68 can be made, when Revenue hasnot given any adverse comments in the remand report and cash deposited is dulyexplained in books of accounts - NO : ITAT


Subhkaran Sampatlal (HUF) Vs ITO (Dated: October 19, 2016)

Whether an opportunity of hearing can be given to assessee in a situation where itsuffer because of the gross negligence of Authorised Representative - YES : ITAT


DCIT Vs Dr Chalasani Mallikarjuna Rao (Dated: October 21, 2016)

Whether moment the transfer took place within the meaning of section 2(47)(v), thedeeming fiction provided u/s 50C are applicable, when the consideration shown in thesale deed is less than the market value determined for the purpose of payment ofstamp duty - YES: ITAT

Whether the assessee is eligible to claim exemption u/s 54F towards investment inconstruction of residential house property, even if the said construction wascommenced before the date of transfer of asset - YES: ITAT

Whether where the assessee invests net sale consideration for the purpose ofpurchase/construction of new residential house property, then he is eligible forexemption u/s 54, even though the full value of consideration is more than the net saleconsideration as a result of transfer - YES: ITAT


Satya Sheel Gupta Vs ITO (Dated: October 17, 2016)

Whether reopening of assessment is sustainable, where while recording the reasonsthe AO was not having the copy of statement or any other material in which the partiesare alleged to have provided accommodation entries to the assessee – No: ITAT


Saraf Export Palace Vs ACIT (Dated: October 21, 2016)

Whether rectification application filed by assessee is liable to be dismissed, where theassessee failed to answer in which class the case filed u/s 154(3) would fall and whatprejudice was caused to the assessee by adjudicating the application by the CIT(A)without issuing the notice – Yes: ITAT


ITO Vs Satyanarayan T Agarwal (Dated: September 30, 2016)

Whether addition on account of unexplained receipt can be made where theundisclosed receipt was on account of payments directly made by the parties oftransport contractor to the truck owners and tax was deducted at source in the nameof contractor – NO: ITAT

Whether addition on account of cash credit can be made u/s 68 where the bankaccount in which cash has been deposited has been shown in the regular books ofaccount and all the debits and credits in this bank account have been reflected in therelated account in the books in the audited balance sheet – No: ITAT


Electropneumatics And Hydraulics India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: November10, 2016)

Whether AO's opion in relation certain legitimate expenditure as capital expenditure ordisallowance of genuine business expenditure amounts to furnishing of inadequateparticulars of income, attracting penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the act - NO:HC


Sai Shipping Company Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (Dated: October 18, 2016)

Whether imposition of penalty is sustainable on grounds of inaccurate particulars of

income, when AO made no an attempt/effort to scrutinize the accounts of the assesseeto identify the actual expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to the earning ofexempt income before invoking Rule 8D read with Section 14A of the Act - NO:HC

Whether imposition of penalty is sustainable on grounds of inaccurate particulars ofincome, when assessee himself came forward to declare the amount of disallowance asper section 14A and did not file appeal against the assessment order passed by AO -NO:HC


ACIT Vs Vasant Construction Company India (Dated: September 28, 2016)

Whether CIT(A) can admit additional evidence u/rule 46A without providingoppertunity hear or condradict to the AO? No: ITAT


Valeo Friction Materials India Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: March 16, 2016)

Whether where the reopening is barred by limitation, then reopening of assessmentu/s 147 is not warranted-YES: ITAT

Whether where claim of the assessee is genuine, then assessee is entitled to claim theexpenditure towards process scrap material -YES: ITAT


VR Usha Vs ITO (Dated: May 12, 2016)

Whether the house property conveyed to the assessee by means of settlement deedsubject to life interest over the property can be a reason for denying deduction underSection 54F-NO: ITAT

Whether where the assessee has ownership subject to the life interest retained by theassessee's mother, then such property can be considered as one of the residentialhouses for the purpose of denying exemption u/s 54F –NO: ITAT


Tamizhvel PT Rajan Commemoration Trust Vs DDIT (Dated: March 18, 2016)

Whether the assessee is carrying out the charitable activity in accordance with theobjects of the trust or not? It is also needs to be examined whether the assessee-trust,in fact, utilized the income from community hall for charitable activity or not.

Whether where ancillary activity of receipt of rent from a community Hall is claimed byassessee primarily engaged in imparting of education, then utilization of the income ofthe assessee-trust for charitable activity needs to be examined year by year whileallowing the claim of the assessee u/s 11-YES:ITAT

2016-TIOL-2139-ITAT-PANAJI

Mahant Rubber Factory Vs ACIT (Dated: June 28, 2016)

Whether an order u/s 263 can be passed only where there is an enhancement ormodification of the assessment or there is cancellation of the assessment and direction

of the fresh assessment- YES: ITAT

Whether where there is an issue of enhancing or modifying of the assessment order,then the AO only gives effect to the order u/s 263 by re-computing the total income /total tax liability and such orders where AO has given effect by only re-computing asper order of the CIT u/s 263 is not appealable before the CIT (A)-YES: ITAT

Whether where the CIT(A) has invoked his powers u/s 263 by cancelling theassessment and by directing a fresh assessment then he has to give specific directionsin regard to the methodology of the fresh assessment and a failure on this part by theCIT would render the order u/s 263 unsustainable- YES: ITAT


Sir Hurkisondas Nurrotumdas Hospital And Research Centre Vs DCIT (Dated:August 26, 2016)

Whether fixed remuneration paid to independent professional for renderingprofessional services for fixed hours of work is liable to TDS u/s 192? No: ITAT


Shyama Prakash Agarwal Vs ITO (Dated: March 17, 2016)

Whether capital gain received on relinquishment of right to obtain sale deed is akin tocapital gain received on transfer of land & building for purpose of making addition u/s50C? No: ITAT


Shangkalpam Industries Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (Dated: September 7, 2016)

Whether section 222(1) mandates the Tax Recovery Officer to draw a statement in theprescribed form specifying the amount of arrears due from the assessee termed as"certificate"-YES: ITAT

Whether the Revenue can enforce its discretionary power for attaching the immovableproperty of the assessee when there is no demand as the result of any appellateproceedings-NO: ITAT

Whether not following the orders of the Tribunal will amount to "contempt"-YES: ITAT


Shailaben C Patel Vs ITO (Dated: September 23, 2016)

Whether where the assessee is under bona fide belief that she is not liable for capitalgains tax then no penalty is leviable-YES: ITAT


Vean Management Consultants Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (Dated: May 12, 2016)

Whether where the summary of books of account is presented before the AO in theform of Profit & Loss account, then AO cannot took alibi that inspite of due diligence,he could not find out the claim made by the assessee with regard to unabsorbeddepreciation-YES: ITAT

Whether where there is no negligence on the part of the assessee in disclosing all

material facts for completing assessment before the AO, then re-appreciating thematerial filed by the assessee in the regular assessment is not a justifiable reason forreopening the assessment after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant A/Y-YES:ITAT


Saraswati Devi Educational And Charitable Trust Vs CIT (Dated: March 31,2016)

Whether where the CIT has neither indicated nor furnished the nature of informationand has rejected assessee's claim u/s 12AA/80G merely on the ground that applicantcould not file most of the information called for, then same is not justified-YES: ITAT

Whether rejection of application for registration u/s 12AA by appellate authority is notwarranted where same is done without any justified reason and basis and where thefact that the objects of the assessee trust are charitable and no allegation is broughtout on record itself by the appellate authority-YES:ITAT

Whether merely because the trustees are of the same family, does not put a rider orany adverse inference that the assessee applicant-trust is not for charitable purposes-YES:ITAT


DCIT Vs Sanjay Transport Agency (Dated: August 26, 2016)

Whether addition can be made in total income of Assessee on the sole basis thatprofits of earlier year were higher, wihout going into the buisness conditions and otherevidences? No: ITAT

Whether expenses can be disallowed u/s 40A(2) because related payments were madeto family members? No: ITAT


Sahyadri Gramin Biger Sheti Sahakari Patsantha Ltd Vs ITO (Dated: August26, 2016)

Whether a cooperative credit societyis entitled to deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) on theinterest income kept with various banks other than cooperative banks/societies – Yes:ITAT


DCIT Vs Ravi Ramesh Babu (Dated: July 22, 2016)

Whether where the E-card expenditure incurred by the assessee are merelysubscription charges paid to become a member of a multi level marketing and whereno enduring benefit is arising out of the expenditure ,then same is to be considered asrevenue expenses-YES: ITAT


Sreeji Transport Services Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (Dated: July 13, 2016)

Whether where the document showing unexplained investment is impounded from thepossession of the assessee and it is not only self speaking, but the same was dulyadmitted, explained and confirmed by the assessee himself, then addition u/s 69B iswarranted-YES: ITAT


ITO Vs Priya Raheja (Dated: March 17, 2016)

Whether where taking of opening stock by the assessee is evident from share purchasedetails and from DEMAT account and accounts of the assessee, then no addition iswarranted- YES: ITAT

Whether where a categorical finding is given by CIT(A) in his order that thetransactions are well evident from the relevant statement of the share broker, contractnote, bank statement and are verifiable and are related to business, then no addition iswarranted

Whether where the assessee has satisfactorily discharged his burden of proving theloan, then addition is not warranted-YES: ITAT

Whether where the rent security is evidenced from rent agreement and further thesame has been appropriated against rent in next financial year, then addition are notwarranted-YES:ITAT

Whether where the categorical finding is given by CIT(A) that cash deposit in bankaccounts on various dates are supported by cash book maintained by the assessee andbooks of accounts are produced before the AO in assessment proceedings and also inremand proceedings and also before CIT(A),then addition are not warranted-YES:ITAT


Parvez Alam Vs CIT (Dated: March 17, 2016)

Whether section 263 can be invoked only in the case of lack of inquiry and not forinadequate inquiry-YES: ITAT

Whether where there is complete lack of inquiry by the assessing officer, as thepersons stated to be agents of the assessee and from whom cash was seized, are notexamined by the AO ,then Section 263 is rightly invoked by appellate authority-YES:ITAT


Parvati Ramani Vs DCIT (Dated: May 13, 2016)

Whether where the assessee is able to raise proper objections then the DVO's reportcannot be treated as sacrosanct and it is amenable to adjustment -YES: ITAT

Whether where the AO has not made out a case for adopting the value determined bythe DVO, then ale value declared by the assessee is to be accepted and no addition iswarranted-YES: ITAT


Shri Pareshkumar Mafatlal Patel Vs DCIT (Dated: January 6, 2016)

Whether penalty u/s 234E can be imposed for late filing of TDS statement whenintimation u/s 200A, raising a demand or directing a refund to the tax deductor, ispassed after 1yr from the end of the F.Y. within which the related TDS statement isfiled? No: ITAT


Shri Kalika Mata Temple Public Trust Vs ACIT (Dated: March 21, 2016)

Whether appointment of receiver by the Court is sufficient reason for condonation ofdelay in giving notice to AO u/s 11(2)(a) for excluding the accumulated income fromprevious year? Yes: ITAT


Jaspinder Singh Kang Vs DCIT (Dated: June 30, 2016)

Whether where neither the conduct of the assessee inspires any confidence, nor anymaterial is on record to show that the assessee is consistently maintaining his accountson Cash basis, then addition u/s 28 is warranted-YES: ITAT


Indrani Prasad Vs ACIT (Dated: January 29, 2016)

Whether revision u/s 263 can be initiated only that behest of AO, without CIT (A)applying its mind independently to issue? No: ITAT

2016-TIOL-2121-ITAT-COCHIN

ACIT Vs Venu B Pillai (Dated: July 25, 2016)

Whether where the assessing authority has reason to believe that the alleged bogusentry providers are used by the assessee as a beneficiary, then the revenue canreopen the individual assessment-YES: ITAT

Whether neither the parties are existent at assessment date nor anything is producedto prove that the parties existed and the purchases are genuine, then addition on thebasis of the bogus purchases from the said parties is justified-YES: ITAT

Whether Evidence Act is applicable to proceedings under the Income Tax Act-NO: ITAT


Mamatha Silk Centre Vs ITO (Dated: September 14, 2016)

Whether rejection of books of accounts is sustainable, where the assessee has himselfadmitted additional income in the course of survey – Yes: ITAT

Whether there can be double additions on the same issue – No : ITAT


Shibpur Pachai Shop Vs ITO (Dated: October 19, 2016)

Whether provisions of Section 40A(3) are applicable, where the transaction made byassessee is genuine, the identity of the receiver is established beyond doubt and thepayment is made in the bank account of the seller – No: ITAT


GB Impex Vs ITO (Dated: November 17, 2016)

Whether books of accounts can be rejected on ground of failure to produce bills/stock

register/ledger/cash book to make it difficult to verify the trading results – Yes: ITAT

Whether disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) can be made on account of non-deduction of TDSu/s 194J, where the recipient of income had included the income in its return and acopy of CA certificate was filed before the AO – No: ITAT

income tax appellate tribunal order tax appellate tribunal order ... mumbai railway vikas corpn ltd...

Documents