-
ITAT - Presumption not available u/s 14A r/w Rule 8D that as sufficient capital was available, investment in tax-free securities was made from own funds
Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4632 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 37(1): Non-compete fee to ex-MD is revenue expenditure
ACIT. vs. Clariant Chemicals (I) Ltd.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4594 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 37(1)
-
ITAT - Though not properly presented the principles of justice, equity and good concise cast a duty upon ITAT to correct mistakes apparent from record
Gits Food Products Pvt.Ltd. vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4591 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Forfeiture of share application money is a capital receipt and also no benefit or perquisite arises
Graviss Hospitality Ltd vs DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4580 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Impact of Explanation 2 to s. 195(1) inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.r.e.f. 01.04.1962 on law laid down in GE India Technology Centre 327 ITR 456 (SC) explained
ACIT. vs. Vilas N. Tamhankar
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4577 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 195(1)
-
S. 133A: A statement given u/s 133A(iii) is not on oath and can be retracted. Even a statement on oath does not create any estoppel and can be retracted
ITO. vs. Vandana Properties
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4576 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections. 133A, 133A(iii)
-
Addition U/s. 50C for mere variance with Stamp Duty Valuation without investigation not justified
Inderlok Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Inderlok Infra-Agro Pvt. Ltd.) v/s. Income Tax Officer – Ward-5(2)(1), Mumbai
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4563 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 50C
-
ITAT - Disallowance/TDS cannot be made u/s 40(a)(ia) on the basis of subsequent amendment brought into the Act with retrospective effect
Rich Graviss Products Pvt Ltd. vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4560 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Write-down due to bankruptcy not revenue in nature
Tata Communications Ltd. vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4557 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Deposit made by individual taxpayer in Trust's bank account wherein assessee was a sole beneficiary represents unaccounted income
Mohan Manoj Dhupelia and Ors vs. DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4524 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Payment to Swiss Co. for installation / commissioning of complex 'mail room equipment', not taxable in India as not FTS
Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. vs. ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4522 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 9(l)(vii)
-
ITAT - AS-7 can be followed even though not notified u/s 145
International Metro Civil Contractors vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4517 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 145
-
S. 14A Rule 8D: No presumption can be drawn that investment in tax-free securities has come from own funds. The amount of disallowance has to be added to the book profits u/s 115JB
Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4507 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 14A
-
S. 2(47((v)/(vi): Mere execution of a development agreement does not result in a "transfer" if the approval of the municality is delayed and the developer has not started work
Dilip Anand Vazirani vs. ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4331 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 2(47((v)/(vi)
-
S. 271(1)(c): No penalty can be levied solely on the basis of admission made during survey if there is no corroborative evidence & no fault is found with the return of income
ACIT. vs. Crescent Property Developers
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4330 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 271(1)(c)
-
S. 9(1)(vii): Separate agreements for supply & installation cannot be regarded as one composite contract. However, as the installation is an "assembly" project, it will not constitute "fees for technical services". Even if such services are FTS u/s 9(1)(vii) they are excluded from taxation in India by Article 14 of the India-Swiss DTAA as the recipient has no PE in India
ITO. vs. Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4327 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 9(1)(vii),
-
S. 54: Purchasing the undivided share of a co-owner in a new flat constitutes a "purchase" & is eligible for exemption
ITO. vs. Narinder Kaur Bhatia
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4324 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 54
-
S. 50C(2): Reference to DVO cannot be made if assessee has challenged the valuation by the stamp authorities and even if the said challenge is dismissed on ground that as purchaser paid the duty, assessee had no locus standi to challenge stamp valuation
Seksaria Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4308 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 50C(2)
-
Information received by the AO that the assessee is a beneficary in a "discretionary" trust set up in Liechtenstein can form the basis of assessment of undisclosed income in the assessee's hands. Argument that the trust is "discretionary" and that the amount has not "accrued" to him or that the documents are "not corroborated" is not acceptable
Mohan Manoj Dhupelia vs. DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4303 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 194-I: Payment for use of an asset simpliciter, whether with control and possession in its legal sense or not, could be said to be for the use of an asset. However, payment for a specific act such as power transmission and even if an asset is used in the said process, cannot be said to be for the use of an asset
ACIT vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4302 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 194-I
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.