-
Keeping in mind learned CIT(A)'s finding that assessee has indulged in dubious transaction of claiming forfeiture, it would show that the amount involved has been correctly reduced from the value of assets of the assesse.
The Supreme Industries Limited Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20698 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Merely because the assessee has claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act, by treating the flat as a commercial property, assessee's claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act cannot be disallowed if the assessee fulfills the conditions of section 54 of the Act. Merely because the assessee claimed a deduction under the wrong provision, his claim cannot be disallowed if it is allowable under a different provision , thus directs AO to allow assessee's claim of deduction u/s 54.
Satish S. Prabhu Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20695 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 54
-
S. 68/ 69C: In case of bogus purchases where sales are accepted, the addition can be made only to the extent of difference between the GP declared by the assessee on normal purchases vis a vis bogus purchases. The AO is directed to restrict the addition to the extent of lower GP declared by the assessee in respect of bogus purchases as compared to G.P. on normal purchases
Hemant M Mehta HUF vs. ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20662 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 68, 69
-
In case if the giving effect order has already been passed by the AO, even then the doors of the assessee are left open that these items can be adjudicated on merits even in appellate proceedings.
L’Oreal India Pvt. Ltd Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20660 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Imposing penalty u/s. 272A(2)(K) of the Act was passed on 05.12.2013 making the penalty order null and void as it was passed after insertion of the second proviso to section 272A of the Act.
Blue Star Construction Co Vs Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Tax TDS
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20659 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 272A(2)(k)
-
The SC decision in Sovereign Securities Pvt Ltd relied upon by the Revenue was not applicable to the assessee's case since in that case the AO had held that the conditions of Sec.36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act were not satisfied, which was not the case of the assessee.
Alcatel Lucent Managed Solutions India Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20650 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - No TDS u/s 194H on margin allowed to stockists pursuant to goods sold to the stockists on principal to principal basis.
PFIZER Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20623 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 194H
-
ITAT - Since assessee did not challenge validity of revision order u/s. 263 during revision proceedings with malafide intent, Sec.263 order validity challenge before Tribunal not maintainable.
ACC Limited Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20621 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 263
-
ITAT - Amortisation of discount on issue of Euro bonds over the period of the Euro bonds allowed.
The Tata Power Co. Ltd Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20603 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - The English translated version of all the documents relied upon by the Revenue need to be given to the assessee.
Shri Harshad Ramaniklal Mehta Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20599 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The words 'actually allowed' under Explanation (2) only mean depreciation, which has been given effect to, in the computation of income of the amalgamating companies and will not include unabsorbed depreciation.
ACIT Vs M /s. JSW Steel Limited
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20572 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
There is no substance in the claim of the assessee that as per the pre-amended provision of Sec.43CA, in case the difference between the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority and the actual sale consideration was less than 15%, then the same was to be ignored and no addition on the said count was called for in the hands of the assessee.
Welfare Properties P. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20555 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 43CA
-
Static vs. Ambulatory interpretation of DTAAs: Entire law on whether the retrospective amendments to the definition of "royalty" in s. 9(1)(vi) of the Act can have bearing on the interpretation of the same term in the DTAAs explained with reference to the doctrine of "treaty override" and the Vienna Convention (Siemens AG 310 ITR 320 (Bom) explained)
ACIT vs. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20545 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 9(1)(vi)
-
Law on taxation under DTAAs of "transparent entities" & "representative assesseess" explained: When an assessee is a representative assessee of a tax transparent entity, it is the status of beneficiaries or constituents of tax transparent entities which is relevant for the purpose of determining treaty protection (Linklaters LLP 9 ITR (Trib) 217 (Mum) followed)
ING Bewaar Maatschappij I BV vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20544 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The principle emerging out of this analysis of legal position is that when an assessee is a representative assessee of a tax transparent entity, it is the status of beneficiaries or constituents of tax transparent entities which is relevant for the purpose of determining treaty protection. Viewed thus, this is beyond doubt that the income in question has actually accrued to the taxable entities on the Netherlands, which, according to the approach adopted by the Assessing Officer, is sine qua non for tax treaty protection. It would thus appear that the treaty protection has indeed been wrongly declined to the assesse.
ING Bewaar Maatschappij I BV Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20538 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Aforesaid explanation of the assessee safely falls within the sweep of a plausible explanation, which had not been dislodged or disproved by the revenue till date, therefore, he could not have justifiably been saddled with levy of penalty under Sec.271(1)(c) in respect of the said amount and accordingly deletes the penalty levied .
Shabbir E. Boxwala Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20534 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
To come within the ambit of export u/s. 10AA, the assessee must directly export the goods out of India. Since sales were not directly exported by the assessee out of India but were sold to other SEZ Units, therefore such sales could not be included in export turnover as per the definition provided u/s 10AA.
Lotus Ornaments Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20526 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 10AA
-
Utilisation of share premium amount in paying off loans is irrelevant and there is no provision under Income tax act to tax the same even if there is a violation.
Exind Trading Pvt. Ltd., Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20498 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Once the AO has raised specific query in respect to bank accounts including overseas investment, the assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous for the lack of enquiry or proper enquiry.
Mr. Ajay Gopikisan Piramal Vs The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20473 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 263
-
So far as the source jurisdiction taxability under the treaty provisions is concerned, legal amendments so as to influence the taxability even under the treaty situation, by the source jurisdictions unilaterally, are impermissible. That will be the end result of a domestic law amendment of an undefined treaty term, in departure from the current position, and import such amended meaning of that term, under article 3(2), in the treaty situations as well.
Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20472 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.