Where the amount of insurance claim was less than the amount of actual expenditure incurred on re-construction/renovation, no short term capital gain u/s. 45(1A) could be charged under such circumstances.
Due to amendment made in section 132 by the Finance Act, 2017 w.r.e.f. 1-4-1962 the reason to believe or reason to suspect, as the case may be, shall not be disclosed to any person or authority or appellate Tribunal as recorded, by IT authority under section 132 or 132A, therefore, assessment order passed was not bad in law on account of not furnishing any valid reason for conducting the search.
Assessee had declared additional incomes when AO confronted with details of Form No. 26AS , it could not be said that declaration of income by assessee was voluntary, therefore, levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) on account of concealment was justified, especially in view of the fact that similar income had been earned and duly offered to tax during earlier years also.
Issuance of notice under section 153C is mandatory and a condition precedent for taking action against assessee under section 153C, therefore, assessment order under section 153C issued without issuing a notice under section 153C was bad in law.
M/s. Neha Home Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Since assessee was neither the beneficial nor the registered shareholder of the company, the amount so received is not liable to be taxed as deemed dividend. Moreover, the transaction between two group concerns were in the nature of current account and inter banking account containing […]
ince CIT(A) had erred in dismissing appeal filed manually by assessee. CIT(A) was directed to admit appeal filed by assessee by directing assessee to file its appeal in electronic format and also to condone delay
Portfolio management fees and performance linked fees were paid by assessee to his portfolio manager, towards service charges for making investments of his funds and managing portfolio of securities, therefore, same not being an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the shares, had rightly been held by AO as not allowable as a deduction under section 48.
Sunshine Metals & Alloys Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Section 68 Bogus share capital- Assessee has furnished the Name, Address, PAN no and Share Application Form to prove that the shares were allotted to the applicants. The assessee has also furnished its bank statement to show that the money was received through banking channels and there […]
ITO Vs Sudarshan R. Kharbanda (ITAT Mumbai) If the aforementioned judicial pronouncements and the facts available on record are kept in juxtaposition and analyzed with the assembling of parts done by the assessee, we find that the resultant end product is commercially known differently in the trading world, therefore, certainly it can be said that […]
Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd Vs JCIT (ITAT Mumbai) So far as the penalty proceedings are concerned, the assessee has made out a prima facie case in favour of the assessee proving that the outcome of the appeal before ITAT will directly impact the proceedings which are hurriedly being finalized by the authorities below, which may […]
