Reasons recorded by AO to reopen assessment merely on basis of information from DIT(Inv.) without independently applying his own mind could not be said to be reason to believe that income had escaped assessment hence, reopening was bad in law.
One these reasonings, in the absence of any material change justifying the Revenue to take a different view of the matter— and, if there was no change, it was in support of the assessee— we do not think the question should have been reopened and contrary to what had been decided by the CIT in the earlier proceedings, a different and contradictory stand should have been taken
Where AO had imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) on account of change of head of income in assessment, it was held that mere making a claim which was not acceptable to revenue, could not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to attract penalty proceedings.
In the case of Reliance Communications Ltd, Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) laid down certain guidelines for taxation of royalty payments to non-residents and held that payment for acquiring the copy of the software for the copyrighted article cannot be considered as royalty.
TDS provisions were applicable to interest payments made to NBFCs, however, if payees had shown interest income in their respective returns and paid income tax thereon, no disallowance could be made in view of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia).
Sonega Trades & Investments Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai); During assessment proceedings, it was noted that the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.3.72 Lacs as Municipal Taxes and other charges u/s 24 against rental income earned by the assessee. The said charges comprised-off of Rs.0.72 Lacs being monthly maintenance charges and Rs.3 Lacs being License […]
In Dheeraj Consultancy P. Ltd v. ACIT, the Mumbai ITAT held that the finance cost incurred on overdraft obtained from the bank which is advanced to sister concern for the non-business purpose is not business loss under the Income Tax Act.
In Mr. Ravi Shankar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) proclaimed in its recent order that pre- amended capital gain under section 54 of the Income Tax Act 1961 can be availed for two residential houses.
Goodwill is an intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii) covered within the expression ‘any other business or commercial rights of similar nature’ and, therefore, assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on such goodwill.
Where assessee had made investment in subsidiary companies not to earn tax free income but out of commercial expediency, no dis allowance under section 14A was called for.
