-
ITAT - Section 74 does not give benefit of set-off and carry forward of losses under head 'capital gains' in case of amalgamation and demerger
Clariant Chemicals (I) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-1 (1), Mumbai
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5065 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=38583&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Where company was under serious indictment in fraud cases, is to be excluded from list of comparables for TP study. Companies which are not functionally comparable are to be excluded from list of comparables
Stream International Services (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax- 7 (2), Mumbai
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5061 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=39303&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Law on making adjustments for 'risk' and 'location savings' explained
Watson Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5048 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Explanations of assessee were full of discrepancies and contradictions and unsubstantiated, additions under sec. 68 is upheld as assessee didn’t prove that funds were arranged by broker for share transactions
Dhanraj Mills (P.) ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central -3, Mumbai
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5043 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=39285&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Even though prescribed authority did not submit form No. 3CL for granting approval under section 35(2AB) in time to income-tax department, Assessee could not be denied deduction under section 35(2AB)
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax- 2(1) v. Famy Care Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5036 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=39284&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - The assessee has disclosed all relevant details as well as documents in support of its computation of Short term Capital Gain by taking into consideration the actual sale consideration received by the assessee. Consequently penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied even if s. 50C is applicable
ACIT. Vs. Sunland Metal Recycling
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5034 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections. 50C, 271(1)(c)
-
ITAT - Amounts received under a Power of Attorney for making investments cannot be treated as income in the hands of the recipient
Sannidhi C. Patel Vs. ITO
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5033 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 56(2)(vi)
-
ITAT - High Court verdict in Hindustan Organics Chemicals 270 CTR 478 (Bom) decides that employees' contribution to PF is eligible for s. 43B even though that was not the issue before it. It also does not refer to any judicial precedents. Also, the Question framed by the dept and its representation before the High Court leaves much to be desired. However, the judgement is binding and has to be followed
ITO. vs. Indore Steel and Iron Mills Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5032 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections. 43B, 36(1)(va), 43B
-
ITAT - It cannot be accepted that a bald statement made by the AO that any transaction/business done with a party would be sham, simply because the opposite party besides doing regular business was also indulging in providing accommodation entries. Simply on the basis of statement given by the third party, that they were also providing accommodation entries as well, the conduct of the assessee cannot be doubted and held to be sham.
ACIT. Vs. M/s. G V Sons
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5031 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT = Additions made solely on the basis of AIR information are not sustainable in law. The AO has to prove that assessee has received income from a particular source. The assessee cannot be expected to prove the negative
M/s. ANS Law Associates Vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5030 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Assessee not liable to deduct tax at source from commission payments made to foreign agents for securing sales order.
Khimji Visram & Sons v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range- 12 (3), Mumbai
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5016 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenINTL.aspx?ID=7514&Category=INTLDecisions&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - When an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an order which is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-10 (1), Mumbai
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5005 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenINTL.aspx?ID=7697&Category=INTLDecisions&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - 'Tax WDV' of assets taken over from demerged company would be relevant for resulting company's depreciation upon demerger for AY 2000-01 to 2003-04
Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 4993 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - The Commissioner has not brought out any fact or material to suggest or cast any doubt about the genuineness of the transaction, accordingly, the setting aside of the assessment order and restoring back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh consideration is beyond the jurisdiction u/s 263
Elder IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 4991 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - When the jurisdictional High Court has admitted substantial question of law on the addition, it becomes apparent that the addition so made has become debatable and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot survive
Schrader Duncan Limited vs. ACIT
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 4985 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections. 271(1)(c), 260A
-
ITAT - In the case of bonus shares acquired by the assessee prior to April 1, 1981, the assessee was entitled to adopt the fair market value as on April 1, 1981 as the cost of acquisition but in case bonus shares were acquired after April 1, 1981, the cost of acquisition would be Nil.
DDIT. Vs. H & R Johnson (Overseas) Ltd.
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 4954 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Neither the assessee nor the Revenue has the right to flout the decision of the Tribunal and being an officer functioning under the Government of India it is his obligation to follow the directions of the superior authority and even if there is consent he should not have collected the amount. AO tendered an unconditional apology for his conduct. Approach of the AO cannot be appreciated
Johnson & Johnson Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, LTU
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 4953 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenINTL.aspx?ID=7596&Category=INTLDecisions&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Neither the assessee nor the Revenue has the right to flout the decision of the Tribunal and being an officer functioning under the Government of India it is his obligation to follow the directions of the superior authority and even if there is consent he should not have collected the amount. Collection of tax during remand proceedings ignoring the order of Tribunal by the AO cannot be appreciated
Johnson & Johnson Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, LTU
(2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 4938 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenINTL.aspx?ID=7596&Category=INTLDecisions&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - The correct determination of receipts is a part of the duty of the AO and he cannot refuse to determine the correct receipts
Asstt. Director of Income Tax Versus M/s. Global Geophysical Services Ltd., C/o. Shilpi Agarwal & Co.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4930 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=39206&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Booking and cancellation of forward contract of foreign exchange were not in respect of specified export or import, transactions being speculative in nature benefit of proviso (a) of section 43(5) could not be allowed
Araska Diamond (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, 5 (1), Mumbai
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4907 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=38404&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.