-
The question of stay application before the Tribunal thus normally comes into play only when the demands in question are impugned in appeal before us. That apart, the stay under section 220(6) can only be granted by the Assessing Officer, and not by his supervisory authorities such as the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. As a matter of fact, an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, declining grant of stay during the currency of appeal before the first appellate authority i.e. CIT(A), is only an administrative order.
SALE MOHD PADAMSEE & CO VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 25 MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20455 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79149&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As decided in own case Order appealed against is an order passed under section 195(2) against ONGC requiring it to deduct tax at source on payments made to the assessee. Further, there is no final determination of liability under the Act as far as the assessee is concerned which can only be determined when assessment is framed against the assessee.
DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (I.T) CIRCLE–3 (2) (2) , MUMBAI VERSUS ABUDHABI SHIP BUILDING PJSC C/O APPROACH PROPERTIES P. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20454 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79152&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
An examination of the working of total estimated loss on the project “S.S. House” as worked out by the assessee clearly indicates that it suffers from basic deficiencies viz. (i) total cost incurred till 31/03/2014 ₹ 91,07,85,390/ or ₹ 978,886,048/- is not a reliable one, as the assessee is sticking to two figures, without supporting computation, and (ii) total estimated loss of ₹ 3,95,51,736/- or ₹ 108,431,736/- is not a reliable one, as the assessee is sticking to two figures, without supporting computation, (iii) there is no prudent estimate of additional cost for completion of the project.
ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-25 (3) VERSUS M/S SS ENTERPRISES
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20453 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79153&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The fact that the assessee had also not placed on record any material which would reveal that he had at any occasion reciprocated a similar gift to his sister, also supports the fact that no genuine gift was received by the assessee from his sister.
Kailash A. KotharI Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20450 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
Once the proceeding u/s 153A is initiated which are special proceedings, the legislature provides different treatments for abated and unabated assessments. However, in respect of unabated assessments the legislature has conferred powers on the AO to just follow the assessments already concluded unless incriminating materials are found in the course of search. It is also pertinent to note that the tax can be levied as per the provision of the Act.
SHRI NARESH J. KOTAK, C/O. KALYANIWALLA & MISTRY LLP, MUMBAI VERSUS D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (4), (FORMERLY A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE 39) MUMBAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20428 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79087&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee's claim seeking treaty benefit should not be entertained as assessee had not made any claim by way of valid return.
Mr. Prabhakar Raghavendra Rao Vs Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20419 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The shareholding of the assessee in his individual capacity could neither be clubbed with the holding of his HUF nor with the holding in his capacity of the Executor of the Estate.
ACIT Vs Shri. Prem Sagar
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20418 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 2(22)(e)
-
The A.O who passed the assessment order does not possess valid jurisdiction/authority in absence of separate order u/s 120(4)(b).
Shri Kishore Vithaldas Vs JCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20399 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 120(4)(b)
-
The provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act cannot apply to a foreign company as the relevant Rule 11U which defines balance sheet was not applicable to a foreign company.
Keva Industries Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20396 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 56(2)(viia)
-
Pursuant to the final and binding allotment of the office premises on 03.12.1999, the assessee got vested with the ownership of the rights in respect of the property under consideration.
Suresh Brothers Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-16(3)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20393 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The question of law whether the finding of Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in accepting the NRV as declared by respondent/assessee and was right in not adopting the cost price for computation of closing stock held that the assessee could have adopted the NRV method for valuation of closing stock and whether it is mandatory to value the cost on cost basis, it was held that Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions and observation that closing stock can be valued on cost price or market price, if the market price is less than the cost.
ACIT-1 (1) (1), MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. CONCORDE MOTORS (INDIA) LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20390 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78965&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Sanction letter issued by the Bank of Baroda, London which is also placed on record by the assessee also reveals that the corporate guarantee was to be given in accordance with the applicable R.B.I. guidelines and it further stipulated that no guarantee commission was payable by Ganesh Shipping Inc. Panama it to the guarantors.
B.G. SHIRKE CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 5 (1), MUMBAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20388 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78969&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
From the appeal order passed under section 47 of the Maharashtra regional and city planning Act,1966, it appeared that there was some construction in the project prior to the amendment proposal in the development plan forwarded by the owner of the land which was rejected by CIDCO vide order dated 18/06/1998.
SHIVAM ENTERPRISES VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX–32
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20382 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78946&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Like Article 25 of the Indo-USA treaty, treaties with various other countries such as Indo-Denmark, Indo-Hungary, Indo-Norway, Indo-Oman, Indo-US, Indo- Saudi Arabia, Indo-Taiwan also have similar provision providing for benefit of foreign tax credit even in respect of income not subjected to tax in India. However, Indo-Canada and Indo-Finland treaties do not provide for such benefit unless the income is subjected to tax in both the countries.
Tata Consultancy Service Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20376 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
There is no dispute regarding genuineness of the payment. In this view of the matter there is no accounting mandate that business expenditure incurred need to be allocated to the entire cost of land which is in stock of assessee to artificially increase the cost. In fact this is not sustainable as per accounting principle as the compensation paid has not been incurred for acquisition of land.
ACIT 29 (1) MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. EPLUS GREEN 9
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20360 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78881&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Revenue could not, on the one hand, contend that the amount was undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee and, at the same time, seek to initiate the proceedings against the assessee for alleged violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act; and that the Revenue having taken the stand that the income was undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee, it could not resort to the proceedings u/s. 269SS r.w.s 271D of the Act.
CODE ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DY. CIT, CIRCLE 8 (3)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20359 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78885&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Period for which the person was a member of the recognised stock exchange in India immediately prior to such de- mutualisation or corporatisation shall also be included in the period of holding of shares of BSE Ltd.
M/s. Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT - 4(2)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20352 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Where during the pendency of assessment proceedings, the assessee company was amalgamated with another company and thereby lost its existence, assessment order passed subsequently in the name of said non-existent entity would be without jurisdiction and deserved to be set aside.
Idea Cellular Ltd (as Successor of Spice Communications Ltd) Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20350 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Expenses incurred for issue of bonus shares being capitalization of reserves merely resulted in reallocation of companies funds and there was no inflow of fresh funds or increase in capital employed.
Empower India Ltd Vs The DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20347 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 2(7A)/ 120(4): Though, by virtue of the retrospective amendment to s. 2(7A), the Addl CIT is an "Assessing Officer", he can act as such only if there is a notification issued by the CBDT u/s 120(4)(b) or if there is an order u/s 127 transferring jurisdiction from the DCIT to the Addl CIT. In the absence of either, the assessment order is without jurisdiction and has to be quashed as null and void. The fact that the assessee co-operated is irrelevant because there is no estoppel. The argument of the Dept that as the order is passed by a higher officer, there is no prejudice to the assessee is not acceptable. The matter also cannot be remanded back (All imp judgements referred)
Tata Communications Ltd vs. Addl CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20327 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 2(7A), 120(4)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.