The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, Mumbai, dated 20.04.2016, for A.Ys 2006-07 and 2007-08, which in itself arises from the orders passed by the A.O under Sec. 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income-tax act, 1961 (for short „Act‟), each dated 14.03.2014. That as certain common issues are involved in the appeals, therefore, they are taken up and disposed of by way of a consolidate order. We shall first take up the appeal for A.Y. 2006-07, wherein the assessee assailing the order of the CIT(A) had raised before us the following grounds of appeal
These appeals are filed by the Revenue and cross objections by assessee against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 21, Mumbai dated 16.06.2016 for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2012-13.
The AO further relies on the shop increase of 31000% of the value of shares over the period of 2 years. Though this is highly suspicious, it cannot take the place of evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated that suspicion however strong cannot be the basis for making an addition.
M/s Aditya Enterprise Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) In the instant case, the profit was determined on estimated basis due to the fact that assessee failed to produce books of account during the assessment. Once then profit has been determined on estimated basis then in our considered view no disallowance can be made on account of […]
M/s Inspectorate Singapore Pte. Ltd. Vs ADIT (ITAT Delhi) Assessee was under the belief that due to the ‘make available’ Clause in Article 12 (4) (b) of India Singapore DTAA, the consideration paid by the Indian customers to assessee cannot be regarded as ‘fees for technical services’ and further since there was no transfer of technology […]
ITAT had held that there is no principal-agent relationship between the bank issuing the bank guaranee of the assessee. The ITAT Mumbai Bench had further noted that while it is termed as |guarantee commission|, the same is not in the nature of commission
Penalty u/s.271E was not leviable as the belief of assessee that return of advance from customers was not prohibited by section 269T was a bonafide belief.
ACIT Vs M/s Om Metal Infraproject Ltd. (ITAT Jaipur) Clause (iic) inserted in Explanation 1 to section 115JB by the Finance Act, 2015 is remedial and curative in nature as it was brought in the statute to provide similar benefit to the member of the AOP which was earlier applicable to the partner of the […]
M/s Hero Moto Corp Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) As regards to Ground, relating to disallowance of cost of scrap material amounting to Rs.6.34 lacs, it can be seen that in the course of the business of manufacturing, the process generates some scrap on account of rejection of components, obsolescence of components, etc. In the […]
M/s. Enchanting Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Income Tax Officer (ITAT Bangalore) We find that TPO has already taken the total 10 comparables and with respect to 8 comparables, assessee has no objections. With respect to Kerala Travels Interserve Ltd., we have carefully perused its financial statements and we find the main revenue is from different […]
