-
Merely because the investor had not filed its income tax returns, it does not make the entire transactions bogus or the said investor non-existent.
M/s. Hinduja Realty Ventures Ltd. Vs Dy. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20140 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
BSE Card is not an asset of the nature referred under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and thus, depreciation on the said asset is not allowable. On perusal of the working of Client Assistance Charges, we find that it is not the cost per location, per branch which has increased, but the number of branches served by the Bank has increased, which has lead to increase in expenditure which fact the AO has ignored while passing the assessment order.
M/S. ICICI SECURITIES LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS ICICI BROKERAGE SERVICES LIMITED) VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-4 (1), MUMBAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20138 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77949&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The issue of whether refund shall be adjusted against interest payable and balance, if any, shall be adjusted towards tax payable has come up for consideration in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2008-09 and the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer while computing the interest u/s. 244A shall adjust the amount of refund already granted first towards the interest component and balance left, if any, shall be adjusted towards the tax component.
M/S. UNION BANK OF INDIA VERSUS DCIT (LTU) – 2 (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20134 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77948&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) had recorded categorical finding in the light of statement of Shri Kamlesh Shah, Director of the company that the assessee was having excess cash during the course of survey for which no explanation has been offered. We further noted that although the assessee claims to have taken the benefit of telescoping towards income offered from Solitaire Project, but while recording statement during the course of survey it was the case of the assessee that excess cash found during the course of survey represents unaccounted income.
M/S. SILVER LAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-10 (2) , MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20122 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77869&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Indian AE (VGSIPL) of assessee (Audi AG, a German Co.) does not constitute its PE in India in terms of Article 5 of the India- Germany DTAA for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11. Since, VGSIPL is an independent and separate entity which is not acting on behalf of assessee.
Audi AG Vs ADIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20097 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Once the legal position clarified by the Courts have retrospective effect, it can be inferred that such legal position was always the correct position of law and was always prevailing. Though the order was passed by AO & CIT(A) initially was not in contravention of legal position existing therewith, it was in contravention of legal position clarified by SC. It can be said that the mistake was a patent mistake, and which was apparent from the record very much rectifiable under Section 154 of the Act.
Anandkumar Jain Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20080 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 154
-
Making of an Investment and incurring of expenses are two different aspects and the same are not found to be either overlapping or interchangeable. We are of a strong conviction that the A.O in the garb of scrutinising the investment made by the assessee in property could not have traversed beyond that and adverted to issues pertaining to incurring of the expenses in respect of the said property.
R. & H. Property Developer, Pvt. Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of Income-tax -11
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20079 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 263
-
The assessee manifested its intention of change of user from business to that of giving these properties on rent for longer period of time wherein doctrine of supervening impossibility had set in preventing business user of these properties for the purposes of business of the assessee.
M/S. EMCO DYESTUFF PRIVATE LTD. VERSUS DCIT 12 (2) (1) , MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20073 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77626&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
There was tenure of license/product but there was no certainty that in every subsequent year some determinate service had to be provided by it, that there was no determined/committed expenditure which the assessee was required to incur in the future years towards the corresponding share of revenue, that the indeterminate event of providing of updates and services as and when the they were developed which had been in keeping with the industrial norm.
CA (INDIA) TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE 10 (1)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20061 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77606&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Condition prescribed is that the eligible unit should begin to manufacture or produce articles/things or provide any services during the previous year relevant to any assessment year commencing on or after 01-04-2006. The previous year for the assessment year 2006-07 is the financial year 1-04-2005 to 31-03-2006, meaning thereby, the manufacture/production etc., should be commenced from 01-04-2005 onwards. In the instant case, the assessee has commenced its operation on 31-10-2005.
M/S. ADVANCE GRP COOLING TOWERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS I.T.O., 12 (1) (1) ,
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20055 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77557&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
No hesitation in holding that the assessee is carrying out objects of general public utility, hence, fulfills the condition of charitable purpose under section 2(15) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee is entitled for exemption under section 11 of the Act. It is worth mentioning, after introduction of proviso to section 2(15) DIT(E) cancelled the registration granted under section 12A of the Act by holding that as per the said proviso, the assessee is engaged in commercial activity.
OTTERS CLUB VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMP.) WARD–2 (2) , MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20046 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77504&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Explanation offered by assessee is bonafide to take it out of clutches of the penalty proceedings as no attempt is made by assessee to furnish inaccurate particulars of income nor an attempt is made by assessee to conceal his income more-so there is no prejudice to the Revenue as further income-tax of ₹ 5,00,000/- was deducted at source by employer Pace u/s 192 on behalf of assessee on additional salary income of ₹ 16,63,897/- paid to assessee on 24.09.2013 for impugned ay: 2013-14 within provisions of Section 192.
MR. ANISH DHIRAJ MEHTA VRINDAVAN VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 10 (3) (3) , AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20044 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77510&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee had entered into agreement for sale in FY 2012-13, moreover the stamp duty was also paid during the same FY, however, the sale of gala was registered during F.Y. 2013-14. The final registration of sale agreement was only a fulfillment of contractual obligation and accordingly provisions of section 43CA, did not apply at the time of entering into a transaction.
Rajprabha Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20027 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Bogus purchases in s. 153D search assessment: There is serious suspicion about the conduct of the assessee in taking additional ground challenging the issue of approval u/s 153D for the first time before the Tribunal. The assessee is making an attempt is derail the issue on merits and to escape on technical ground. The affidavits filed by the AOs coupled with circumstantial evidences available in the assessment folders clearly establish the fact of obtaining necessary approval u/s 153D though copy of approval letter is not available in the assessment record. Argument that only profit can be assessed is not correct. 100% addition u/s 69C towards bogus purchases confirmed (NK Proteins 292 CTR 354 (SC) followed)
Pratibha Pipes & Structurals Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20024 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 254(2): (i) Delay of 420 days in filing appeal due to subsequent decision of the Supreme Court is a valid ground for condonation of delay (ii) An order can be said to suffer from a "mistake apparent from the record" if it contrary to a subsequent judgement of the Supreme Court. Courts do not make any new law; they only clarify the legal position which was earlier not correctly understood. Such legal position clarified by Courts has retrospective effect as the law was always the same
Anandkumar Jain vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20023 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 254(2)
-
As the aforesaid final possession letter was never filed by the assessee before the A.O, therefore, the said verification was indispensably required to be done on his part in order to verify the authenticity of the aforesaid claim of the assessee. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in context of the issue under consideration, we uphold his view.
MR. SANJAY BADANI C/O JAYESH SANGHRAJKA & CO LLP VERSUS ACIT-10 (3) [NOW KNOWN AS 15 (2) (1) ] AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20009 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77422&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
The mere fact that the investment was funded using a portion of an interest-free shareholder loan and share capital does not affect the appellant's status as the beneficial owner of interest income, as the entire interest income was the sole property of the appellant., cites OECD 2017 Model Convention to appreciate the meaning of beneficial owner. The transaction between the appellant- assessee and ABPL cannot be considered a mere back-to-back transaction lacking economic substance.
Golden Bella Holdings Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(3)(2)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20008 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Assessee was granted exemption u/s. 11 upto preceding AY wherein AO had accepted that assessee's activities fell within the expression 'advancement of any other object of general public utility' u/s. 2(15), however, Revenue had denied exemption during subject AY in view of introduction of the proviso to Sec. 2(15). Considering the objects for which the assessee is set up and manner in which funds generated are utilized, there is no doubt that there is no profit motive in carrying out the activity of the assesse. Therefore, revenue's pleea is rejected and assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 11.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20007 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 11
-
As decided in assessee's own case in the present case it cannot be disputed that the net consequence of the disallowance of the employer's and the employees' contribution is that the business profits have to that extent been enhanced. There was as we have already noted, an add back by the Assessing Officer to the Income. All profits of the unit of the assessee have been derived from manufacturing activity. The salaries paid by the assessee, It has not been disputed, relate to the manufacturing activity.
ITO-15 (1) (3) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S CREDIT SUISSE BUSINESS ANALYTICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20003 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77401&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
MAT credit available on account of excess payment of tax in the earlier years is that of the assessee itself and not of the demerged company. All the taxes paid / payable before the appointed date shall be on account of assessee and those paid / payable after the appointed date will be to the account of TCS Ltd.
TCS E-Serve International Limited Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19997 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.