-
ITAT - Brand building expenditure to create public awareness and consciousness of product so as to increase sales of assessee could not be said to bring any benefit of enduring nature; Allowable.
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle- 2(2), Mumbai v. Polygel Industries (P.) Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6257 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=40413&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Despite documentary evidence and broker’s confirmation, genuineness of penny stock transactions has to be determined on the basis of ‘preponderance of human probabilities’. If assessee is unable to explain ‘intriguing’ facts and circumstances, genuineness of transaction cannot be accepted
ITO vs. Shamim M. Bharwani
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6185 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 68
-
ITAT - Only credits received during the year can be assessed as unexplained cash credits. Credits of earlier years, even if unexplained, cannot be assessed
Rita Stephen Pinto vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6184 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 68
-
ITAT - S. 2(22)(e) is a deeming provision and has to be strictly construed. Assessee can discharge onus by pointing to 'preponderance of probability' and If explanation is not found to be false then, even if amounts are assessed as 'deemed dividend', penalty cannot be levied
ITO vs. Dipti Nikhil Modi
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6181 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 2(22)(e), 271(1)(c)
-
ITAT - Amounts credited to Thyrocare Service Provider (collection centers for patient samples) by assessee (an accredited laboratory) is covered by provisions of Sec 194H.
ITO vs. Thyrocare Technologies Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6165 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 194H
-
ITAT - Legal consequence of applicability of proviso to Sec 2(15) on registration of an entity as charitable institution - Seeks Larger-bench reference
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6164 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 2(15), 12A
-
ITAT - Mistake in claiming deduction of interest expenditure despite s. 43B attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c)
Trans Polyurethane Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6146 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
ITAT - There is no judicial impropriety in the CIT filing an appeal before the Tribunal against his own order as CIT(A) deciding the appeal in favour of the assessee
ITO vs. M/s. Paras Builders
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6145 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 253(2)
-
ITAT - Penalty u/s 221(1) cannot be levied for non-payment of S. A tax if the assessee has financial hardship
DCIT vs. Aanjaneya Life Care Ltd
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6143 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 221(1)
-
ITAT - Appellate authority has jurisdiction to entertain fresh claim and plea, therefore assessee’s claim of exempt Long Term Capital Gains, inadvertently offered as taxable STCG is allowed.
Preeti Paresh Bhagat vs ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6138 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Entities with high related party transactions and functional differences in comparable lists, therefore impugned addition by TPO deserved to be set aside
Shell India Markets (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Mumbai
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6120 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenINTL.aspx?ID=7721&Category=INTLDecisions&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Payment of channel placement charges to cable operators/MSOs - TDS to be deducted u/s 194C and not u/s 194J
ITO (TDS) & Others Versus M/s Times Global Broadcasting Co. Ltd. & Others
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6064 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=40243&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Unexplained cash credit u/s.68 - For a scrip to trade at nearly 50 times its’ face value, only a few months after its issue, only implies, if not price manipulation, trail blazing performance and/or great business prospects is conspicuous by its absence, i.e., even years after the transaction/s - The company is, by all counts, a paper company and its share transactions, managed.
ITO Versus Shamim M. Bharwani Noor-E-Rehmant
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6063 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=40244&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Transaction of derivative market which included foreign currency and call option/put option, could not be treated as speculative in nature.
IVF Advisors (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 10 (1), Mumbai
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6056 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=40248&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Since AO has merely relied on inquiries conducted by Sales Tax Department, without conducting any other investigation, therefore, no Sec 69C addition can be made for unexplained purchases.
Deepak Popatlal Gala vs. Income Tax Officer
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6048 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Ownership of State cannot be considered or taken into account to determine the character or nature of the activities carried on by the MIDC. Sec 11 charity exemption not available to MIDC as hit by Sec 2(15) proviso.
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation vs. DDIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5988 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 2(15)
-
ITAT - Assessee held shares of group companies for strategic purposes and not for selling/buying shares frequently and further no expenditure was actually incurred by the assessee to maintain such investments, no Sec 14A disallowance
Piem Hotels Limited vs. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5986 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 14A
-
ITAT - AO is not entitled to treat all purchases as bogus merely because sales-tax department has called the seller a "Hawala dealer". The AO ought to have verified the bank details of the assessee and the seller and other evidence before treating the purchases as bogus
Ramesh Kumar & Co
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5985 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Addition towards bogus purchases cannot be made solely on the basis of statements of seller before sales-tax authorities. The AO has to conduct own enquiries and give assessee opportunity to cross-examine the seller
ITO vs. Deepak Popatlal Gala
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5984 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Once the particular transaction, which is the subject matter of comparison for transfer pricing adjustment, has not even undertaken or has been cancelled, then such a transaction has to be excluded for the purpose of benchmarking the transfer price.
M/s Livingstones Versus Deputy commissioner of Income Tax, 16(3), Mumbai
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5974 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=35149&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.