ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards section 68 of the Income Tax Act deleted as assessee discharged initial onus by proving identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of claim of exemption u/s. 10(38) on alleged bogus LTCG untenable since disallowance is based on general report of the investigation wing. Thus, addition u/s. 68 deleted due to lack of adequate evidence disallowance set aside.
Assessee didnot file return for the year under consideration. As per AIMS module information received that assessee has deposited the amount of Rs.16,84,100/- as cash during the demonetization period. Case was reopened notice was issued accordingly.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee has submitted all the necessary details in terms of purchase bills, transportation bills, confirmed copy of accounts and payment are made through cheques, hence disallowance of such purchases is not justified.
ITAT Mumbai held that in the matter of adjustment of seized cash against self-assessment tax liability restored the matter back to file of AO for re-verification of application filed by the assessee. Accordingly, appeal partly allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act beyond 3 years liable to be quashed as escaped income is less than INR 50,00,000. Thus, notice issued u/s. 148 quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that additional claim of deduction of bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act filed during the course of assessment other than filing a revised return is allowable. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that notice for re-assessment proceeding under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued on a non-existing entity i.e. merged entity is void ab initio and hence is liable to be quashed.
Rupesh Kantilal Savla Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Power to assess block period of ten years could not be attracted in case of a Income Tax search which had taken place prior to 1-4-2017
Held that the shareholding of the assessee (voting right) has continued to remain not less than 50% as prescribed in clause (b) of proviso to 47(xiv) of the Act, even after issuing of new shares by the above said company.
