ITAT Mumbai

No Condonation of delay if reasonable cause not furnished by assessee

Krishna Developers Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Where assessee failed to show that delay in filing the appeal was not attributable to any factors which were beyond its control, plea raised by assessee for condoning the delay in filing appeal was dismissed....

Read More

Assessment in name of non-existent company was invalid & non-curable defect

DCIT Vs. First Future Agri and Developers Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)

Since AO had completed the assessment in the name of a company which had merged and was not in existence on the date the assessment order was passed, therefore, the assessment was invalid and the same was not a curable defect under section 292B....

Read More

Sec. 43CA was not applicable if transfer was only rights in under-construction flats instead of property per se

Shree Laxmi Estate Pvt.Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

Shree Laxmi Estate Pvt.Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Since assessee had transferred pursuant to registration of the agreement was only the rights in the flat/ office (which was under construction) and not the property per se hence, there was no transfer of any land or building or both by the assessee in favour of […]...

Read More

Section 12AA registration cannot be cancelled for mere violation of section 11 and 13

Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust Vs CIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust Vs CIT (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case, the case sought to be made out by the Commissioner is that the violation carried out by the assessee would lead to denial of exemption u/s. 11 & 13 of the Act and, therefore, the pre-requisite of section 12AA(3) of the Act […]...

Read More

Interest paid on delay in paying customs duty is deductible

M/s M. J. Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

M/s M. J. Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The facts in brief are that the Collector of customs levied customs duty and penalty on the goods imported by the assessee in F.Y. 1988-89 vide order dated 28th January 1994 and subsequently, levied interest for not paying the customs duty and penalty in time. […]...

Read More

Order contrary to subsequent SC judgement can be said to suffer from mistake apparent from record

Anandkumar Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

Anandkumar Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case, there is no dispute with respect to the fact that the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports (supra) has decided the issue of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act on sale proceeds of DEPB license in favour […]...

Read More

L&T Case: Classic example of change of opinion

DCIT Vs M/s Larsen & Toubro Limited (ITAT Mumbai)

The assessee had challenged reopening of assessment on two grounds. The CIT(A) had accepted the arguments of the assessee, in light of provisions of section 147 of the Act, and the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 29/12/2018 and came to the conclusion that the assessment has been reopened on change of opinion...

Read More

Penalty cannot be levied for mere disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 54

ITO Vs Shri Kantilal G. Kotecha (ITAT Mumbai)

ITO Vs Shri Kantilal G. Kotecha (ITAT Mumbai) We find that with regard to claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act, this tribunal in quantum proceedings had granted deduction u/s 54 of the Act to the extent of payments made within the prescribed limitation period i.e payments made within one year prior to the […]...

Read More

Receipt from a right to sue cannot be considered capital gain U/s. 45

ACIT Vs Shri Anil Gulabdas Shah (ITAT Mumbai)

ACIT  Vs Shri Anil Gulabdas Shah (ITAT Mumbai) The undisputed position that emerges is the fact that the property under consideration was subject matter of extensive litigation which ultimate got culminated into sale of the property by the assessee in terms of consent terms dated 03/01/2012 between the assessee and certain other parties....

Read More

Section 54F | Holding period | Computation from allotment or possession date

ITO Vs Smt. Meeta Bhavesh Ganatra (ITAT Mumbai)

 As allotment of property was final and payment of purchase consideration had been duly made before allotment, therefore, holding period of property had to be computed from the date of allotment, and not from the date of taking delivery of possession which was only a follow-up action....

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,321)
Company Law (5,066)
Custom Duty (7,438)
DGFT (4,017)
Excise Duty (4,265)
Fema / RBI (3,861)
Finance (4,025)
Income Tax (30,972)
SEBI (3,209)
Service Tax (3,471)