JCIT Vs Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) We agree with the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that since assessee has not earned any exempt income and therefore no disallowance is warranted u/s. 14A of the Act. In the case of Joint Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [372 ITR 694] the […]
Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Upon perusal of assessment order under consideration, it is quite evident that an order was passed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. One of the reasons to reopen the case was the allegation of Ld. AO that income from assets given on lease, though […]
DCIT Vs Mumbai Nasik Expressway Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Expenditure incurred by the assessee for construction of road under BOT contract by Govt. of India have given rise to an intangible asset as defined under explanation 3(b) read with section 32(1)(iii) of the Act, assessee would be eligible to claim depreciation on such asset at specified […]
As both the financial statement of Shri. Virendra Tandon (Father) for the Assessment Year 2014-15, as well as his admission in the ‘gift deed’, dated July 21, 2013 along with a mention of the source of the gift transaction in question, that is, accumulated savings of the past, as were filed by the assesse with the A.O in the course of the assessment proceedings, therein, clearly sufficed to discharge the primary onus that was cast upon him to prove the ‘nature’ and ‘source’ of the cash credit in his books of accounts. Hence, the ITAT deletes addition of Rupees. 30 Lacs received by Actor Kushal Tandon as a gift from his Father.
Examining the present case on the anvil of aforesaid case law, we find that the notice in this also is an omnibus show-cause notice as it does not strike off/delete the inappropriate/irrelevant/not applicable portion. Such a generic notice betrays a non-application of mind. Hence, the penalty levied pursuant to such a notice is not legally sustainable in law.
Yashovardhan Birla Vs CIT (ITAT Mumbai) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai bench, in its order has examined the definition of ‘undisclosed asset’ in the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Impositions of Tax Act (BML Act) and held that the assets which constitute part of income tax proceedings and have been […]
Rangbahar Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai) In this case CIT (Commissioner of Income tax), disallowed depreciation on mobiles, as the assessee has not provided ‘the place of installation’ of Mobile Phones. Vide para 18 of the Revision Order of the CIT was of the opinion that the assessee has not provided “the place […]
ITO Vs Braitrim India Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Admittedly, as the remittances made by the asessee before us, viz. BIPL to M/s Braitrim UK Ltd. had been held to have been made towards reimbursement of expenses (without any mark-up), therefore, in the absence of any income element chargeable to tax in the hands of the […]
An interest-free debt funding of an overseas company in the nature of a special purpose vehicle (SPV), with a corresponding obligation to use it for the purpose of acquisition of a target company abroad, could not be compared with a loan simpliciter, and be, subjected to an arm’s length price adjustment on account of notional interest on a loan by assessee company to its fully owned foreign subsidiary as balances reflected on account of exchange difference for notional conversions could not be treated as outstanding dues.
Arjun Transport Company Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) In cases selected under ‘limited scrutiny’, the Assessing Officer cannot exceed the latitude of limited scrutiny unless the scope of scrutiny is expanded or the case is converted from ‘limited scrutiny’ to ‘complete scrutiny’ with the approval of authority, as specified by the CBDT in Instructions […]
