The Advocates Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD These appeal filed by the Assessee as well as Revenue are directed against CIT(A) – 7, Hyderabad’s separate orders, dated 21/02/2019 for AY 2011-12 & 2014-15 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) rws 147of the Income Tax Act, […]
ACIT Vs Modi Industries Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) We have perused the order passed by co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2011-12 wherein proposition mooted out by the assessee that the rental income from letting out steel units and quarter situated in the steel units is to be treated as “income from […]
Soul Jewels Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) We find that assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of trading in diamonds. The original assessment was completed for the A.Y.2007-08 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act determining the total income at Rs.56,34,520/- vide order dated 27/12/2011. This assessment was sought to be reopened by issue […]
DCIT Vs Cache Properties Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Hyderabad) Fact that the property let out is a commercial complex is not sufficient to treat the rental income therefrom as ‘Business Income’. The tests to be applied are; 1) the tenure of the lease, 2) the objects of the company; 3) the intention of the company; and […]
While recording of the reasons to reopen an assessment, AO was required to form only prima Facie opinions about escapement of income as he was not making an assessment but taking a first baby step for making the assessment by forming a reasonable belief that whether the claim of assessee should be tested in reassessment proceedings or not. Thus, there was no infirmity in the action of AO that reasoned escapement of income by claiming deduction of Rs. 1 crore u/s 54EC.
Revenue ought to have brought evidence on record by bringing comparative quotations to prove the fact that the lease rent paid in the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs per month to the trustees was excessive or unreasonable and beyond the fair market value thereon. Since ssessee placed on record that the market value of the land was Rs.13,03,76,400/- as per the registered lease deed and the payment of lease rent of Rs.24 lakhs works out to hardly 1.86% thereon. Hence, it could be safely concluded that the rent paid by assessee-trust to the trustees was not excessive or unreasonable.
everting to the CUP method applied by assessee as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the SDT of rent payment, assessee had given a comparable instance of rent paid @ Rs.112 per sq.ft. by ICICI bank under a lease agreement dated 17.02.2012 for a nearby premises. As against that, the assessee paid rent @ Rs.75.28 per sq.ft., which showed that the rent paid by assessee was less in comparison with the comparable uncontrolled transaction. Thus, the ALP of the Specified Domestic Tranasction of payment of rent could not be disputed.
ACIT Vs Remi Electrotechnik Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimate basis without any evidence on record with regard to concealment of income. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable to be imposed only where the assessee has concealed its particulars of income or furnished […]
DCIT Vs Toshvin Analytical Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai) As per facts recorded above, the penalty in this case is only with reference to addition on bogus purchases amounting to Rs.3,83,388/-. The addition was sustained by the ITAT @8% of the bogus purchases. We find that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. […]
Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai): Conclusion: Addition as regards the on-money received by assessee was to be made to the extent of the income element embedded in such receipts and the entire amount of on-money could not have been added in the hands of the assessee. No reason or logic had been […]
