M/s. Theis Precision Steel India Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) From perusal of Section 37 of the Act, we find that all expenditure incurred in the course of business of the assessee is allowable except personal expenditure and capital expenditure. Admittedly, professional fee has been paid for valuation of know-how of business and,...

M/s. Royal Rich Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) We are of the considered view that the onus is on the assessee company to bring on record the cogent evidences to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transaction which in the instant case the assessee is not […]...

Rasai Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Admittedly, there has been an omission on the part of the assessee to disclose the LTCG on sale of the shops in its return of income for the year under consideration. However, at the same time, we cannot remain oblivious of the bonafides of the assessee, which […]...

Pratibha Pipes & Structurals Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) In this case, on perusal of facts available on record, we find that the AO has not made addition only on the basis of report of sales-tax department. In fact, the AO has conducted all possible enquiries during the course of assessment proceedings, as per which, […]...

Since the receipt of loans, repayment and payment of interest thereon had been made through regular banking channels from account payee cheques  and no deficiencies whatsoever were found in the documentary evidences submitted by assessee, therefore, no addition of loan amount could be made under section 68...

Addition made by AO on account of suppression of profit and obtaining fictitious loss by assessee company by way of Client Code Modification (CCM) and on account of commission paid to brokers to obtain fictitious loss through CCM was to be deleted as AO had mechanically added amounts as income of assessee without verifying & furnishing...

AO, having accepted the fact that identity of subscribers had been proved, could not have proceeded to make addition only on the basis of charging higher premium, because charging higher premium on issue of shares was a decision between parties and AO would not have any role to play as long as genuineness of transaction was not in doubt. ...

Since the director was not a shareholder when bonus was paid to him and also the bonus was not paid out of the earlier years’ accumulated profits, therefore, deduction of bonus paid to director was allowable under 36(1)(ii)....

Smt. Sapna Chauhan Vs ITO (ITAT Agra) It is settled position in law that the question of Jurisdiction is not a matter of acquiescence. The proprietary of Notice under section 148, based upon ‘reasons recorded’ is not dependent upon the objection or no objection by the assessee at the stage of assessment. If the Reasons […]...

As the actor Shilpa Shetty was a brand ambassador for IPL team Rajasthan Royals, she was bound to render certain services without any charge to subsidiary company JIPL owned by holding company of her husband and assessee did not receive any consideration for the services rendered to JICPL, in the absence of any 'price', the provision of s...