-
ITAT - Even if one is to go by rough sheet containing the questioned entries found by the search team, the CIT (A) has rightly inferred that, the nature of transaction is not loan but a business advance for purchase of machinery - No penalty u/s 271D and 271E.
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-13 (3) (4) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S MUEZ HEST INDIA PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16438 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69556&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Once the advances are held to be business advances they are allowable as deduction either u/s. 37(1) or u/s. 28 of the Act as business loss. Deduction cannot be denied on the ground that the assessee had suomoto written off the advances.
MR. JACKIE SHROFF VERSUS A.C.I.T RANGE – 16 (1) , MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16430 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69547&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Partners remuneration deductible u/s. 40(b)(v) even though partnership deed did not specify the quantum of remuneration nor manner of quantifying such remuneration.
Unitec Marketing Services Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16416 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 40(b)(v)
-
ITAT - Element of Service Tax and Research & Development Cess which is collected, paid and borne by Indian service recipient is not taxable in the hands of the non-resident service provider.
Proctor & Gamble Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16403 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Assessee-bank not liable to deduct TDS u/s. 194I on lease premium paid for acquiring lease rights on immovable property from MMRDA because it is not a rent.
M/s. Bank of India Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16402 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 194-I
-
ITAT - Receipt of cash loans exceeding ₹ 20,000/ from the company by the director has been re-deposited as evidenced by the bank statements - No penalty u/s 271D.
ACIT, CIR 8 (2) , MUMBAI VERSUS MS. RESHMA J. SHETTY, MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16399 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69421&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Advances to wife allowed as write off u/s. 28 as money advanced were in the nature of business advances.
Mr. Jackie Shroff Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16394 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - AO to re-compute interest u/s. 244A by first adjusting the amount of refund already granted towards the interest component and balance to be adjusted towards the tax component.
Bank of Baroda Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16393 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 140A, 244A
-
ITAT - No additions can be made on the basis of material found from an unconnected person when even the said person had not admitted that it relates to the assessee.
KHUSHPAT J. SHAH VERSUS DCIT CC 2 (4) , MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16391 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69407&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - There is nothing on record that the assessee has wound up the business but there is a temporary lull in the business. Deduction cannot be disallowed.
ACIT, CIR, -7 (1) -1, MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. GAMMON OVERSEAS ENGINEERS P. LTD.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16381 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69391&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - When there is no adjustment made in the arms length price, penalty u/s 271G imposed is not justified; even where failure was to furnish information or documents in respect of segmental amount relating to transaction made with AEs and non-AEs for determination of arms length price of international transactions.
DCIT 5 (2) (2) , AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K ROAD VERSUS LAXMI DIAMOND P. LTD., MUMBAI
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16375 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69360&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Revision order u/s 263 directing the A.O. to carry through proper enquiry cannot be said to be liable to be set aside.
M/S. EXPO GAS CONTAINERS LTD. VERSUS CIT-6, MUMBAI
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16374 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69363&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 56(2)(vii) is a counter evasion mechanism to prevent money laundering of unaccounted income & does not apply to bona fide business transaction done out of business exigency. The difference between alleged fair market value of share and the subscribed value of shares cannot be assessed as income u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) (CBDT Circulars & case laws referred)
ACIT vs. Subhodh Menon
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16290 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 56(2)(vii)
-
ITAT - Assessee had the option to opt for the 'Initial assessment year' for claiming deduction u/s 80IA and hence, loss or depreciation in the year earlier to 'initial assessment year' already absorbed against the profit of other business could not be notionally brought forward and set off against the profits of the eligible of the assessee.
THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 24 (2) , MUMBAI VERSUS LOVELY FRAGRANCES
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16229 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68765&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 10(38) Bogus capital gains from penny stocks: If the holding of shares is D-mat account cannot be disputed then the transaction cannot be held as bogus. The AO has also not disputed the sale of shares from the D-mat account of the assessee and the sale consideration was directly credited to the bank account of the assessee. Once the assessee produced all relevant evidence to substantiate the transaction of purchase, dematerialization and sale of shares then, in the absence of any contrary material brought on record the same cannot be held as bogus transaction merely on the basis of statement of one Anil Agrawal recorded by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata wherein there is a general statement of providing bogus long term capital gain transaction to the clients without stating anything about the transaction of allotment of shares by the company to the assessee
Ramprasad Agarwal vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16217 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 10(38)
-
S. 47(xiiib) r.w.s 47A(4): The conversion of a company into a LLP constitutes a "transfer". If the conditions of s. 47(xiiib) are not satisfied, the transaction is chargeable to 'capital gains‘ u/s 45 (Texspin Engg 263 ITR 345 (Bom) distinguished). If the assets and liabilities of the company are vested in the LLP at 'book values‘ (cost), there is in fact no capital gain. The argument that u/s 58(4) of the LLP Act, the LLP is entitled to carry forward the accumulated losses & unabsorbed depreciation of the company, notwithstanding non-compliance with s. 47(xiiib) is not acceptable
ACIT vs. Celerity Power LLP
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16198 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 47(xiiib), 47A(4), 58(4)
-
S. 254(1)/ Rule 34(5)(c): An order passed by the Tribunal even one day after the prescribed period of 90 days from the date of hearing causes prejudice to the assessee and is liable to be recalled and the appeal posted for fresh hearing
Kaushik N. Tanna vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16182 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 254(1)
-
Bogus expenditure: A statement recorded u/s 133A under fear/ coercion cannot be relied upon by the AO if it is not corroborated by documentary evidence. The assessee is entitled to retract such statement. The AO is bound to give the assessee an opportunity to controvert evidence and cross examine the evidence on which the department places its reliance. A failure in providing the same can result in the order being a nullity (All judgements considered)
Concept Communication Ltd vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16169 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 133A
-
S. 68 Bogus share premium: If the overwhelming evidence in the form of audited accounts, ROC Form 2 & ROC Form 20B shows the 'nature' of receipt to be share premium, it has to be taken to be so. If the Department wants to contend that what is apparent is not real, the onus is on it to prove that it was the assessee's own money which was routed through a third party. S. 68 does not (before & after the 2012 amendment) envisage the valuation of share premium. Consequently, the AO has no jurisdiction to determine whether the share premium is reasonable or not (Pratik Syntex (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO 94 taxmann.com 12 (Mum) distinguished)
DCIT vs. Piramal Realty Pvt. Ltd
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16155 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 2(47) Transfer: Law on whether conversion of preference shares into equity shares constitutes a "transfer" and whether capital gains can be assessed on the basis of the market value of the equity shares explained (Santosh L. Chowgule 234 ITR 787 (Bom) & Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam 102 ITR 248 (AP) distinguished. CBDT Circular dated 12.05.1984 referred
Periar Trading Company Private Limited vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16129 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.