-
ITAT - Deduction u/s 54 available where property sold was in the sole name of the assessee but the property purchased was in the joint names of the assessee and his wife as the consideration for acquisition of the new asset has flown from the assessee.
Shri Vishwanath Acharya Versus ACIT–11 (1), Mumbai and Vice-Versa
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11878 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=54031&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - No addition for notional interest as charging or not charging of interest is a discretion of an assessee-especially when the advance is made out of interest free funds.
DCIT, 5 (1) (2), Mumbai Versus M/s. ETHL Global Capital Ltd.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11874 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=54038&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Where AO failed to come to finding whether the assessee has carried out repetitive transactions of same share, same would be treated as capital gains.
ITO 25 (2) (4), Mumbai Versus Renu Gupta
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11873 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=54040&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Revision u/s 263 justified where there was a mistake in the computation of income and assessee had also admitted that related documents were not filed during the assessment proceedings.
Persil Embroideries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-7, Mumbai
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11872 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=54041&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Loss on Forward Contracts in foreign exchange is a genuine business loss as transactions were carried out in the normal course of business to guard against the fluctuation in foreign exchange.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 5 (2), Mumbai Versus London Star Diamond Company (India) Private Limited
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11866 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=54013&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - The explanation filed by the assessee about not disclosing interest income in the return of income was not bona fide, therefore levy of concealment penalty confirmed.
Suvratanand S. Haridas Versus The ACIT, Circle-26 (1), Mumbai
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11859 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=54026&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Absence of receipt of any reply from the suppliers cannot by itself demonstrate any bogus claim unless any of the attendant facts bear out any bogus nature of the claim of expenditure. No disallowance of alleged unverified purchases/expenditure.
M/s. Simplex Casting Ltd. Versus DCIT (OSD) -3 (1), Mumbai and Vice-Verssa
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11854 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=53983&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - AO collected necessary details, examined the same and then framed the assessment u/s. 143(3), hence revision u/s 263 was not warranted.
People Interactive (I) Private Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11839 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections. 263, 10
-
ITAT - No TDS u/s 194J on payments made by a Foreign Airline company for common utility terminal charges as the same constitutes a payment for ‘facility’ and not fees for technical service.
Singapore Airlines Ltd. Vs. ITO
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11835 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Claim for bad debts not allowed as the balance of the parties in assessee’s books were not tallying with the books of the respective parties.
M/s. Prime Focus Limited Versus ACIT- OSD-1 CEN RG 7, Mumbai
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11832 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=53929&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Set off of loss allowed as claimed by the assessee treating the same as excess application of loss u/s.11. Carry forward of excess expenditure of earlier years for set off in the subsequent years allowed.
ITO (E) 2 (1), Mumbai Versus Malti Vasant Heart Trust
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11827 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=53937&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 9(1)(vi)/ Article 12: Law on whether consideration received for licensing of software programmes can be assessed as "royalty" u/s 9(1)(vi) and Article 12 of the DTAA explained
Qad Europe B.V. vs. DDIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11815 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 9(1)(vi)
-
ITAT - TDS u/s 194C applicable on availing of composite set of services such as stevedoring, loading and unloading, etc. and not u/s 194J.
DCIT (TDS) -1 (1), Mumbai Versus M/s. CMA CGM Global India Private Limited.
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11810 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=53903&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) is a statutory disallowance, therefore enhanced profits due to disallowance shall be considered for deduction u/s 10B.
ITO – 2 (1) (4), Mumbai Versus M/s Anthelio Business Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Con Join Solutions Pvt. Ltd.) And Vice-Versa
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11799 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=53896&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - If the assessee disputes the value as per stamp valuation authority to be substituted in place of sales consideration for the purpose of calculation of capital gain , then the AO should refer the capital asset to valuation Officer to determine the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of capital asset u/s 50C(2) of the Act.
Dilip V Mohindra Versus Income Tax Officer 19 (1) (3), Mumbai
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11784 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=53876&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 14A/ Rule 8D disallowance applies also to dividends received from strategic investments in subsidiaries. S. 40A(2) disallowance is not applicable to co-operative societies. As per Circular No. 14 (XL-35) of 1955 dated 11.4.1955, the AO is obliged to assist the assessee and allow deduction even if not claimed
DCIT vs. The Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11782 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 14A
-
S. 271(1)(c): The law in Dilip Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) & Kaushalya 216 ITR 660 (Bom) requires a show-cause notice u/s 274 to be issued after due application of mind. The non-specification in the notice as to whether penalty is proposed for concealment or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars reflects non-application of mind and renders it void. The fact that the assessee participated in the penalty proceedings does not save it u/s 292B/292BB
Dr. Sarita Milind Davare vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11781 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
S. 73 Explanation (speculation loss): If the assessee manages his transactions of sale and purchase of shares in cash segment and in future segment as a composite business, the transactions cannot be segregated to arrive at profit or loss in each segment separately. The provisions of the Income-tax Act cannot be interpreted to the disadvantage of the assessee and to segregate the transactions in cash and future segment which will be against the spirit of the taxation law
J. M. Financial Services Ltd vs. JCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11780 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 73
-
S. 69C Bogus Purchases: Though S. 133(6) notices were returned unserved and the assessee could not produce the alleged bogus hawala suppliers, the entire purchases cannot be added as undisclosed income. The addition has to be restricted by estimating Gross Profit ratio on the purchases from the alleged accommodation entry providers
Ashwin Purshotam Bajaj vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11779 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 69C
-
ITAT - Though the claim of expenses made by the assessee has been found to be not sustainable by the AO, but without bringing anything on record to show whether any inaccurate particulars were filed by the assessee or if any concealment was done by the assessee. No penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
ALD Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT Circle 3 (1), Mumbai
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11777 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=53794&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.