Amount advanced by Portescap to Videojet in which assessee was a common shareholder holding substantial shareholding could not be termed as loan falling within the purview of sec. 2(22)(e) as the same was shown in the balance-sheet of Portescap as well as Videojet as inter-corporate deposit (ICD).
The issue under consideration is whether the assessee having two properties has right to choose Self occupied and deemed let out property for the purpose of taxation?
Date of transfer of property to compute the six-months period for the purpose of claiming deduction under section 54EC could not be taken from the date when the purchase agreement was registered because the transfer would complete after additional stamp duty to complete the process of registration was paid by assessee.
Assessee could not be debarred from claiming a foreign exchange loss as per Accounting Standard-11 as deduction only for the reason that it had failed to debit liabilities in its books of account.
Brijesh Jaikishin Rupani Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT Mumbai held that The income offered by assessee in income filed pursuant to issue of notice under section 153A was the income detected during the course of search and seizure operation. The case of assessee was squarely covered by provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c), because […]
Since assessment originally made was unabated on the date of search and assessment under section 153A was framed without any incriminating material found during the course of search,therefore, the same was not valid.
As the issue of allowability of deduction u/s 37(1) of foreign tax credit on which tax credit is not available u/s 90 has been admitted by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tata Sons (supra), the same being a debatable issue, no revisionary proceedings u/s 263 is tenable.
This decision of Mumbai ITAT gives a new direction to the ‘make available’ clause to cover within its ambit the transfer of technical plan or design. In simple words, in order to determine taxability of transaction involving transfer of technical plan or design one needs to test such transaction under the ‘make available clause’.
Jefferris India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) When there was no willful concealment and mistake involved human error, penalty under section 271(1)(c ) deleted
As regards comparability of Maple e–solutions Ltd., it has now been well settled through various judicial precedents that this company cannot be treated as comparable due to unreliability of its financial data.
