The present appeal is preferred by the revenue challenging quashing of the notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act. Revenue has mainly contested that CIT (A) has quashed the notices on the ground that it is barred by limitation.
Assessee had filed his income tax return on in which he declared a total income of Rs. 35,00,611, accepted under Section 143(1). A subsequent search and seizure operation on Pipavav Defence and Offshore Engineering Co. brought assessee’s finances under scrutiny, as he was allegedly linked to the company.
ITAT Mumbai held that GST/service tax which is collected by the assessee from its customers and paid to the Government do not form part of the receipts for computation of income as per section 44BB of the Income Tax Act.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled on Prakash Udyog Ltd. vs ITO, addressing errors in income computation, disallowance under section 14A, and overdraft interest disallowance.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unsecured loan unjustified as no information/ material proved that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entry of loan. Addition merely on the basis of investigation report not justified.
The assessee company is engaged in business of manufacturing and has filed the return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 27/09/2012 disclosing a total income of Rs.1,21,67,790/- and the return of income was processed u/sec. 143(1) of the Act.
In the alternate, assessee has also raised a ground that Assessing Officer ought to have allowed the expenditure incurred in cultivation of white button mushrooms and also the depreciation from the gross sales.
ITAT Mumbai held that services rendered by the appellant is taxable in Japan in accordance to Article 12 of the India-Japan DTAA hence Foreign Tax Credit ought to have been granted to Appellant for taxes withheld in Japan.
ITAT Mumbai held that matter regarding addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act remanded back for fresh consideration directing appellant to file all documents/ details and supporting evidence explaining source of cash deposits.
ITAT Mumbai held that where two houses joint together constitutes a single unit for residence, then exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act would be available to such joint residential house.
