(Click here for Analysis)

      (Click here for Judgment - I)

      (Click here for Judgment - II)

2.      B.J.Duplex in relation to depreciation on Passive User : "Since there has been a passive user and that the machinery has been kept ready for use which is a pure finding of fact, the Assessee is entitled to depreciation." 

      (Click here for Judgment)

3.  Murli Chaudhary regarding Concealment Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) : When Assessment REMAND back : Status : DHC affirmed ITAT view "Even if the addition of Rs 10,00,272/- in respect of which penalty u/s   271(1)(c) was imposed, had not been deleted by the learned CIT(A) in the quantum proceedings vide an order dated 14.12.1990 and the issue relating to the said addition was actually remanded by him to the file of the AO for reconsideration, the ultimate result was the same in as much as the very basis of imposition of the said penalty did not survive and the said penalty having no legs to stand was liable to be cancelled as rightly held by the Tribunal."

      (Click here for Judgment)

4.     Shri Raj Kumar regarding Trade Advance and Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of Income Tax 

      (Click here for Analysis)

      (Click here for Judgment)

ITAT Updates 

Ahd ITAT has distinguished Goetze in context of fresh claim before CIT-A - where assessee did not file revised return before AO and assessee is entitled to make new claims before CIT- A (Per Sh R.P.Garg Sr VP) 22 DTR 225 Niko Resources.

Mum ITAT in Mahindra and Mahindra 22 DTR 361: Department Representative before ITAT cannot be permitted to take a stand contrary to one taken by AO as same would amount to Deptt Representative exercising revision powers of CIT u/s 263 (Jaipur ITAT in 110 ITD 59 applied)

Part ANALYSIS of Circular no. 03/2009.

(Click here for Analysis)