ITO Vs Balwas Realty and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Leasing and service charges from leasing premises of special nature as per client’s need to taxed as business income Conclusion: Where assessee-company was not simply letting out a structure to earn rental income out of it rather it was in the business of building and […]
Sodexo SVC India Pvt Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Order passed by AO under section 201(1)/201(1A) for failure to deduct TDS under section 194C on the reimbursement of the meal vouchers to the affiliates was barred by limitation as the amended limitation period of seven years under section 201(3) was effective from 1-10-2014 and […]
ACIT Vs M/s. Rational Handloom Co. Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) MAT on depreciation on write back of excess depreciation provided in earlier 10 years and credited to profit and loss account of current year. The appellant has contested the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the appellant has rightly taken the books […]
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, therefore, […]
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. Therefore, addition on mere suspicion under section 68 could not be sustained.
