Orra Fine Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The substantial issue for consideration now before us for the A.Y. 2012-13 is whether the provisions of section 79 of the Act can be invoked and examined in the assessment year in which the assessee claimed for carry forward of losses or in the assessment year […]
TRX Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The assessee is contending to exclude from the list of comparables M/s. Acropetal Technologies Limited (Seg.), M/s. Accentia Technologies Limited, ICRA Online Ltd. and Jeevan Scientific Technology Limited. In similar circumstances and for the same assessment year, the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Aspect Technology […]
ITO Vs Abhay Kantilal Shah (ITAT Mumbai) In instant case, as mentioned earlier, the assessee has filed before the AO copies of (i) bank statements for the financial year 201011, evidencing the payments made to these parties; (ii) ledger account of all the parties; (iii) purchase invoices from these parties and (iv) sale invoices as […]
Amendment in section 37(1) of the Act has been introduced w.e.f. 1st April, 2015 and does not apply on the facts of the case and the disabling provision as stated in Explanation 2 to section 37(1) refers only to such corporate social responsibility expenditure as u/s. 135 of the Companies Act, 2013
Haier Appliances India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) This is not disputed by the Revenue as the TPO in order dated 21.10.2011 considered Vivek Limited as appropriate comparable for benchmarking AMP expenses, applying Bright Line Test. The TPO considered Vivek Limited as comparable as it is trader/re-seller of home appliances and does not own […]
ACIT Vs Shiv Offset India Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Indore) In the instant case the Ld. A.O had passed the original assessment taking into consideration of all the documents and facts of the case and again he had reopened the case without bringing out any fresh material on record and thus there was a mere change […]
Supertron Electronics Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) The admitted fact is that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee for both the assessment years. Only a notice u/s 148 and Section 143(2)(1) of the Act was issued. Under these circumstances we have to hold that the assessment orders for […]
Addition was made merely on the basis of whatsapp messages and the statement recorded from section 132(4) from Shri Lanka Anil Kumar which was subsequently retracted. Therefore we are of the view that the addition made by the AO is unsustainable.
ACIT Vs Deccan Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Visakhapatnam) We find from the orders of the lower authorities that the basis for additional income was only estimation but not supported by any evidence. Even the department failed to substantiate the industry average of purification loss with authenticated documentary evidences. The assessee submitted that the additional income […]
Settlement received from the Government of India was not coming under the purview of the business income as there was no business during the period and income which had not accrued to assessee could not be termed as business income.
