-
MCI guidelines cannot decide the allowability or otherwise of an expenditure in t he hands of drug manufacturing companies or individuals other than doctors under the Act. This cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, more particularly when the assessee had given complete details of expenses together with supporting evidences before the ld AO. Sec 37 disallowance deserves to be deleted.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19969 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 37
-
Commercial prudence postulates that BIPL (Indian subsidiary) bears the ultimate responsibility of such rebates in respect of India sales, and thus the payment of such reimbursements. The payments qualify as a pure reimbursement of expenses and accordingly, not taxable in India
Braitrim UK Limited Vs DCIT (IT)-1(3)(2)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19967 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
If, you go through the points taken up by the PCIT for verification regarding interest income and turnover mismatch, the figure taken up by the PCIT is exactly one and the same. The assessee has reported interest income under the head sales turnover in its audit reports, whereas in ITR sales turnover and interest income has been shown separately. If, you add back sales turnover and interest income, then there would be no difference in turnover reported by the assessee in its audit report.
ARITRO ASHSISH ROY VERSUS ACIT-24 (1) , MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19964 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77319&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
MAT credit available to the assessee prior to that date even though, the same is arised on account of SEZ units, the credit for such MAT credit needs to be allowed to the assessee, but not to the demerged SEZ units. TCS Ltd has not claimed credit for MAT credit in their return of income.
DCIT-3 (3) (2) , MUMBAI VERSUS TCS E-SERVE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, MUMBAI AND (VICE-VERSA)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19963 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77320&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated 28.12.10 reveals that the AO has not deleted the inappropriate words and parts of the notice, whereby it is not clear as to the default committed by the assessee, i.e. whether it is concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is sought to be levied.
SUNITA SHREEGOPAL BARASIA VERSUS ACIT RG 16 (1) MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19956 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77286&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Operation of both the stay orders has expired due to lapse of six month time period from the date of the order. Therefore, when the orders have outlived their utility and lost their force in course of time, nothing survives for either recall or modification.
DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE–4 (1) (2), MUMBAI VERSUS VODAFONE INDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19950 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77270&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
It defies cannon of all commercial logic and expediency that all these supplier parties are supplying material without seeking their payments from the assessee as not even a single payment has been made by the assessee to all these aforesaid suppliers till the end of the previous year.
M/s. Western Imaginary Transcon Private Ltd. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19922 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Assessee is entitled to the deduction of profits made during the sick period in terms of the provisions of section 115JB(vii).
Rama Pulp and Papers Ltd Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19920 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
In order to claim exemption w.r.t gift ingredients to be satisfied: (a) Transfer, (b) No consideration, (c) Voluntary action and (d) acceptance by donee, further in case of gift of immovable property execution of gift deed is required, failing which gift would not be treated as valid gift under law.
Shri Bonifacio D’souza Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19919 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
In the absence of any corroborative or circumstantial evidence to lend any credence to the contents of the loose paper, no addition can be made on mere presumption, guess-work or conjectures.
Shri Salman Khan Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19917 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
It is well known that there are several reasons for difference in income between Form 26AS and books of accounts such as disparity of accounting policy, misquoting of PAN, etc on which the assessee does not have any control and asking the assessee to do the impossible is unwarranted.
TUV India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19915 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The AO is at liberty to bring to tax the amounts in their respective hands of the investors if their identity, genuineness and creditworthiness is not proved.
ACIT CIR 23 (1) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S CALVIN PROPERTIES
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19911 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77123&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
As in Assessment Year 2008-09 as well as in Assessment Year 2009-10, the assessing authority itself accepted the stand of the assessee that the Executive search fee was not taxable in India.
SPENCER STUART INTERNATIONAL BV VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) , 4 (2) (2), MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19910 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77121&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessee's intention was to expand its activity in overseas market. Hence, subsidiary was only a method by which the assessee was going to spend US$ 1 million for the purpose of its business.
Zoom Entertainment Network Limited Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19907 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
The additional compensation of ₹ 9 Crores was payable to the assessee only pursuant to consent terms dated 03/01/2012 filed before Hon’ble Supreme Court.
ACIT – 24 (1) , MUMBAI VERSUS SHRI ANIL GULABDAS SHAH
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19877 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77022&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the services and facilities of the assessee are not accessible to the general public.
Otters Club Vs ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19868 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 11
-
Provisions u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act speaks about the actual receipt of the income and actual expenses incurred for that and deemed income is not to be assessed.
INDIAN CANCER SOCIETY VERSUS ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) -II (1), MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19846 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76935&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Although, there is no supporting evidences filed in support of contents of affidavit explaining reasons for not filing the appeal, but a sworn statement in form of affidavit cannot be ignored in total.
ADI D VACHHA VERSUS ITO, WARD-12 (3) (1) MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19844 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76941&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Penalty paid is in the nature of damages paid for settlement of disputes to safeguard business interest and incurred in carrying out assessee's business operations and thus, is incidental to the business operations.
Air India Ltd Vs D y. Commissioner of Income Tax-5 (2)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19824 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
As the Tribunal has already held that the interest on NRE/ Foreign Currency Bank Account is exempt under section 10(4)(ii) of the Act, there is no question of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, on this amount.
John James D’Souza Vs T he Asst. Com m is sioner of Incom e T ax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19822 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.