P A Chacko Muthalaly Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- If the approvals of the technical services have not been granted, obviously then assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s. 80RRA. The Tribunal cannot go beyond its scope to hold that CBDT was not correct in refusing the permission for which assessee could have taken appropriate steps before the Honourable High Court. In the light of this discussion we are of the view that assessee is not entitle for deduction u/s.80 RRA.
Mitsutor Shipping Agency Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The assessee was owner of the premises in which it was carrying on business. The assessee paid maintenance charges to the society of Apartment Owners. According to the AO the assessee ought to have deducted tax at source on the payment of maintenance charges to the society as the payment by the assessee to the society was in the nature of contract and, therefore, the provisions of section 194C was applicable.
ITO Vs Millenium Writing Products Pvt Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) Deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act is available to an assessee whose gross total income includes any profits and gains derived from eligible business as specified in the section. Here the assessee is claiming deduction on an item of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of employees’ contribution to PF, which was not deposited within the due date. This is neither an item of profit or gain of eligible business nor an item of Profit & Loss Account or manufacturing account rather it is just an employees’ contribution to PF, which assessee has to collect from its employees and to deposit with the PF authorities within the due date prescribed.
The revenue is in appeal against the order dated 03.09.2009 passed by ld. CIT(A) in the matter of assessment made by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2006-07.
M/s Maitri Developers Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- Project completion method is well recognised method as per AS-7. Under project completion method entire project as a whole is to be seen and hence transfer of some flats via registration is not conclusive of the year in which the income attributable to the project is to be taxed. Completion certificate is also not conclusive of the fact that the project was completed when the facility of drinking water shows it otherwise.
ITO Vs Maharashtra State Co-operative, Consumers Federation Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) -Whether CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/ – made by the AO under sect ion 41(1) of the Act . Assessee is an AOP being the Apex body of consumers co-operative societies in the State of Maharashtra. Its business is divided in 8 Divisional Offices and 13 Apna Bhandars which are retail out lets of federations. The federation is Semi – Government body sponsored and fully supported by the State Government federations.
DCIT, Baroda Vs Liberty Phosphate (ITAT Ahemdabad)- It was not in dispute that in respect of an another building at Udaipur, this assessee itself has capitalised the expenditure. However, the impugned repairs were in respect of an another factory building situated at F-227, Mewar Industrial Area Udaipur, wherein the company has carried out manufacturing of Fertiliser; namely, Single Super Phosphate. One of the ingredients of the said fertiliser is stated to be sulphuric acid.
Jyoti Traders Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai )- In our view the conditions precedent for passing an order u/s.142(2A) of the Act directing the Assessee to get its account audited by a special auditor viz., the satisfaction of the AO having regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts of the assessee and the interest of the revenue, that is necessary get the assessee’s account audited by a special auditor is not fulfilled in the present case and therefore the reference to special audit is held to be invalid.
ACIT Vs M/s JPS Associates (ITAT Mumbai)- Revenue has raised a grievance against the finding of the Ld. CIT (A) that hire charges received on account of hiring of the motor-cars, office equipment, computer, furniture and fixture is to be treated as a business income. The Ld. D.R. vehemently argued that the assessee has not carried out any activity and hence, the same is to be treated as income from other sources. Per contra, Ld. Counsel submitted that the said income has been accepted by the A.O. as business income in the preceding assessment years.
Jethiben K Patel Discretionary Trust Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)- In the case of Mohanlal N. Shah (HUF)- Vs- ACIT reported in [2008] 26 SOT 380 (Mum) wherein it was held that as per section 48, option is with the assessee to or not to avail of benefit of indexation for computation of capital gains on transfer of long- term capital asset.
