In this article, we discuss ITAT Mumbai’s decision in Hiranandani Healthcare Pvt Ltd vs CIT case regarding set-off of brought forward losses and impact of Section 79 on individual shareholding changes.
ITAT Mumbai held that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act is not mandatory or automatic and same needs to be examined depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that Department has brought nothing on record to prove that the assessee was involved in price rigging of the instant share or that any form of cash had flown back to the assessee. Accordingly, addition on account of bogus capital gain by sale of shares unjustified.
ITAT Mumbai held that receipt of rental income by giving the land on lease to the LLP and non-utilization of the said land does not preclude the assessee to treat the same as agricultural income. Accordingly, the same is exempt.
Read how ITAT Mumbai imposes a cost of Rs 5,000 on Edifice Properties Pvt Ltd for non-compliance with notices in their appeal against the CIT(A) order.
ITAT Mumbai held that the entire assessment order have not been passed in the case of non-existing entity i.e. amalgamated entity is null and void and hence liable to be quashed.
ITAT Chennai held that the services rendered by non-resident agent for completion of export commitment would not fall under the definition for fee for technical services. Hence, disallowance alleging non-deduction of TDS unjustified.
ITAT Mumbai held that the fee paid by the assessee i.e. Tata Consultancy Services towards the brand to Tata and Sons Ltd. is not capital in nature for the reason that the brand is not owned by the assessee. Hence, there cannot be any TP adjustment towards the amount that ought to have been received by the assessee towards brand royalty.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the assessee is engaged in development of the infrastructure facility and therefore, a developer, which confers right of eligibility to the assessee to claim benefits u/s. 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act. Mere referring assessee as a contractor in the agreement cannot deprive assessee from claiming deduction u/s. 80IA(4).
ITAT Ahmedabad held that government grants received in lieu of FRP i.e. Financial Restructuring Plant is not required to be reduced from the cost of capital assets. Accordingly, reopening of assessment unjustified.
