Ms Deekay Gears Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Undisputedly, in the course of proceedings before the first appellate authority the assessee had filed letter dated 19thSeptember 2017, seeking withdrawal of the appeal. Taking note of the said letter, learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine without deciding it on merit. Therefore, the issue which arises […]
Neelam Nananni Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Deduction under section 54 was available on purchase of new flats by assessee from long-term capital gain earned on sale of old asset even if investment was not made out of the proceeds of capital gain. Held: Assessee earned a long-term capital gain on the sale of immovable […]
Since assessee had duly filed revised return within the mandate of section 139(5), therefore, the same could not be treated as non est and claim of depreciation in revised return could not be denied on the ground that it was not claimed in original return and also, assessee was not required to seek condonation of delay in terms of section 119(2)(b).
Retiring partners did not acquire any right in the revalued property and what they got on retirement was only money equivalent to enhanced portion of the assets re-valued which did not constitute capital asset under section 2(14) and payment of the said money by assessee-firm to retiring partners could not give rise to capital gain under section 45(4) read with section 2(14).
TDS under section 194A was liable to be deducted on amount paid towards interest on loan availed for purchasing a vehicle even when the amount in question was debited from the account of assessee through ECS and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was to be made for non-deduction of tax at source even when nothing remained outstanding at the end of the year as the provisions contained under section 40(a)(ia) did not make any distinction between the amount paid or payable.
In the absence of a valid order u/s 120(4)(b) as well as section 127(1) of the Act the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax could not have exercised powers of an Assessing Officer to pass the impugned assessment order.
Conclusion: Exemption under Section 54 was available to assessee for properties purchased in foreign countries as there was no condition in the provision that the property must be purchased in India prior to amendment in the provision in 2015.
Kohinoor Industrial Premises Co– operative Society Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Undisputedly, the assessee has derived rental income from letting out space in the terrace of the building to mobile companies for installing their mobile tower / antenna. It is also a fact that the assessee has offered such rental income as income from house […]
ITO Vs Ms. Rayoman Carriers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) The insinuation of revenue that ITAT passes order in a state of oblivion to the facts and antecedents to the appeal, displays a totally irresponsible and cavalier approach on the part of Revenue on the cusp of contempt and deserving exemplary cost to purge the same. […]
ITO Vs M/s. Dinal Diamonds (ITAT Mumbai) We find that in this case the sales have not been doubted. It is settled law that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchase cannot be done. The rationale being no sales is possible without actual purchases. This proposition is supported from the Hon’ble jurisdictional […]
