Held that consideration paid by the assessee in excess of its value of tangible assets was rightly classified as goodwill the same is eligible for depreciation
Pratibha Industries Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that in case of parallel proceedings under Income-tax Act, 1961 and IBC, 2016, the IBC has an overriding effect over the provisions of the Income-tax Act which has been decided by Hon’ble Apex Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd in […]
Explore the case of Salasar Derivatives Pvt. Ltd. against ITO, focusing on the justification of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. Detailed analysis and conclusion.
ITAT Mumbai sets aside reassessment in Bombay Real Estate Development Co. case, emphasizing absence of new material. Key analysis and implications discussed.
ITAT held that it is not a sham and bogus transaction. One of the grounds considered for recording that finding is that when the other party is a statutory body the question of evasion of tax does not arise
The assessee has received incentive in the form of Octroi refund under Govt. of Maharashtra Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007. We find that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s. Universal Construction Machinery and Equipments Ltd. in an identical set of facts has held subsidy received by the assessee under Package Scheme of Incentives, 2007 as capital in nature.
Disallowance u/s 40A(3) would not fall within the ambit of a prima facie error or arithmetical error warranting adjustment in terms of Section 143(1) of the Act unsustainable.
The assessee was used as a conduit company along with other companies to violate the provisions of minimum public shareholding criteria under SEBI Laws. Accordingly, addition confirmed as the amounts credited in the books of accounts of assessee lack genuineness.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M. Narayan N. Boos. Vs. ACIT, Circle (339 ITR 192) held that addition made by the A.O merely on the basis of retracted statement u/s 132(4) could not be sustained in the absence of any evidence material or recovery of any movable or immovable assets at the time of search to corroborate the disclosure made by the assessee.
Explore the ITAT Mumbai decision in Abacus International Pte Ltd. vs. DDIT, where notional interest income on interest-free loans was assessed and its impact on penalty u/s. 271(1)(c).
