ITAT Mumbai sets aside reassessment in Bombay Real Estate Development Co. case, emphasizing absence of new material. Key analysis and implications discussed.
ITAT find that the assessee has not been able to bring out genuine reasons, firstly, for such a huge delay of 1103 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and also why the assessee irrespective of being given eight opportunities by the ld. CIT(A) did not present himself or through his authorised representative before the first appellate authority.
Held that we are of the considered view that the predominant intention of entering into these agreements is letting out of the property and not provision of any independent services.
ITAT held that it is not a sham and bogus transaction. One of the grounds considered for recording that finding is that when the other party is a statutory body the question of evasion of tax does not arise
Assessee contended That National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in rejecting appeal filed by the assessee summarily by stating that appellant has not filed appeal against intimation order u/s 143(1) and tried to take back door entry by filing appeal against order u/s 154 for which the original cause of action has arisen at the stage of 143(1) itself without appreciating the fact that on first stage appellant has taken the remedy of filing application u/s 154 which is legal and as per the provision of Income Tax Act.
The assessee has received incentive in the form of Octroi refund under Govt. of Maharashtra Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007. We find that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s. Universal Construction Machinery and Equipments Ltd. in an identical set of facts has held subsidy received by the assessee under Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007 as capital in nature.
The amount was never debited to the profit and loss account as an expenditure in the year they were received also the amount has not been written off. Said amount not taxable u/s 41(1)
Disallowance u/s 40A(3) would not fall within the ambit of a prima facie error or arithmetical error warranting adjustment in terms of Section 143(1) of the Act unsustainable.
Enhancing the quantity of gold by the weight of stones and diamonds is not logical. It was neither valued nor any Expert Valuers report was available on record. Addition unsustainable.
Bank guarantee commission cannot be said to be a commission as intended to u/s 194H of the but it is in the nature of Bank charges charged by the bank for provision of services to the assessee. TDS not deductible.
