Sanwalchand Udaychand Bafna HUF Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) From the order of learned CIT(A) it is evident that it is assessee’s contention that the amount received is actually arrears of interest. Hence, the sum cannot be considered as cash credit. The learned CIT(A) despite noting these facts has mechanically confirmed Assessing Officer’s order without any […]
It is not at the whim or fancy of a tax authority to decide as to what constitutes ‘beneficial ownership’; it is absolutely fundamental that as what constitutes beneficial ownership must also be examined and categorical findings are given as to how these requirements of beneficial ownership are satisfied in the present case.
DCIT Vs Credit Suisse (Singapore) Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee conducts portfolio investments in Indian securities in its capacity as SEBI registered FII/FPI, conclusion of the learned CIT(A) that the offshore distribution commission income is in th nature of ‘business income’ of the assessee does not require any interference. Facts- The assessee is a company […]
Zeeshan Azizmohmed Shaikh Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Both SEBI and BSE corroborated the fact that Kailash Auto Finance Ltd was not a genuine company – LTCG exemption u/s 10(38) denied – addition u/s 68 sustained Facts- The assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of trading in paper. The assessee filed its […]
Arcil CPS 002 XIII Trust Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Assessee trust is a Revocable Trust and contribution by beneficiaries is a revocable transfer. Hence, the income shall be taxed in the hands of the beneficiaries. Facts- The assessee is an AOP in the nature of trust in the business of securitization of debts and processing […]
Shrenuj & Co Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) We found as per the provisions of Sec. 14 of IBC-2016 till the conclusion of proceedings under IBC-2016 no suit or proceedings can be continued against the corporate debtor. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no point in proceeding with […]
Held that employee is eligible for relief u/s 89 on one-time lumpsum ex-gratia amounts payable by the employer as such compensation received is treated as salary received in advance.
Since AO had merely asked the assessee for filing information in respect of the grounds on which the case was selected and no meaningful enquiry had been carried out by the AO on the information filed by the assessee, therefore, revision under section 263 by CIT was justified.
DCIT Vs Kingfisher Capital CLO. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) At the very outset, it is brought to the notice of the Bench that respondent-assessee company has since been liquidated by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCALT) vide order dated 07.11.2019 and as such no longer in existence. In view of the matter, we are of […]
Reopening is on the wrong assumption of facts and the information received from another assessing officer would not by itself be the basis to have a belief that the income has escaped assessment. Accordingly, we find the reassessment is bad in law and quash the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act.
