These are appeals filed by the assessee directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-13, Mumbai and order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-14, Mumbai dated 28-1-2016 for the assessment year 2006-07. Since facts are identical and issues are common, these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience.
Hatch Associates India (P) Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Admittedly, the impugned assessment year before us is A Y 2007 – 08. For that, AY the assessee has filed return of income on 30/10/2007. Notice u/s 143 (2) of The Income Tax Act should have been served on the assessee within 6 months from the […]
Brief facts are, the assessee a non–banking finance company (NBFC) is engaged in hire, purchase, finance and loan business. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 31-10-2007, declaring loss of Rs. 12,06,02,070.
United Home Entertainment Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Fee for transponder service paid by the assessee to Intelsat was not in the nature of royalty and that the same was not taxable in India, and thus the remittance did not warrant any deduction of tax at source. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT The […]
Once the assessee retracts from the statement given during survey under section 133A then it is the duty of AO to establish beyond any doubt the issues on which the addition in income needs to be made and no addition can be sustained only on the basis of such statement recorded during the survey.
At the outset, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the issue raised by the revenue in second ground of appeal stands covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 615/Mum/2014 (AY-2010-11) order dated 4-11-2015
Disallowance u/s 14A & Rule 8D has to be made even if the assessee has not earned any tax-free income on the investment. . It was immaterial if dividend income was actually earned or not, which, rather, may be a consideration where the shares, as in the present case, are held to retain control over the investee company, i.e., for strategic reasons, as was the case with regard to the investment by Maxopp Investment Ltd. – one of the assessees in that case.
Where assessee claimed loss on sale of motor car, which was wrongly debited to P&L account, but there were other motor cars also existing in block of assets and the said block of asset of motor car had not ceased to exist, therefore, the assessee was entitled to depreciation under section 32 on the block of assets consisting of motor car remaining after crediting sale proceeds of the motor car sold during the year, thus, matter was to be restored to the file of the AO for re-computation of depreciation.
The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against final assessment order dated 27.9.2017 passed u/s 143(3) read with section 144C(5) in pursuance of directions given by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) vide order dated 7.9.2017.
For the only reason that the payment of purchase has been made after a lapse of 9 months cannot render the purchase as non genuine unless and otherwise any material is brought on record which could negate this
