Where claim of deduction had came up with a complete disclosure of all the facts by way of a note to the Computation of Income (COI) filed with assessee’s Return of Income (ROI) for the year under consideration, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) was called for :Novartis India case
These cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the revenue are directed against the order of CIT(A)-7, Mumbai dated 27-12-2011 and it pertains to AY 2006-07. Since both the appeals pertains to same assessee, for the sake of convenience, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
M/s. Housing Development & Infrastructure Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Assessing Officer denied the claim of the assessee being write off of unrealized cost of TDR observing that details have not been furnished and the assessee has not explained why the unabsorbed cost was not claimed in the original return and claimed in the revised return. […]
ITAT Mumbai quashes CIT order reversing Ambuja Cements assessment, citing lack of scientific basis for provision of slow-moving inventory.
Further, the remuneration paid to managing director in the previous year cannot be a criterion for invoking the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act as the assessee’s turnover stood at ₹ 283 lakhs as compared to ₹ 99 lakhs in immediately previous year. This has resulted into rise of 185% in turnover.
Ramesh A. Radhakrishnan Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) We find that the expression used is ‘held’ as against ‘acquired’ or ‘purchased’ as used in other Sections like section 54 / 54F which shows that legislatures were conscious while making use of this expression. The expressions like ‘owned’ / ‘acquired’ has not been used for the purpose […]
DCIT Vs. Salasar Dwellers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Satisfaction in the case is not recorded by the AO of the searched party, which is a pre-condition for invoking jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act and hence, the assessment framed u/s 153C read with Section u/s 143(3) of the Act is bad in law. FULL TEXT […]
While computing capital gain on sale of shares kept under Portfolio Management Scheme (PMS), assessee could not claim deduction of PMS fee as the same neither fell under the category of transfer fee, nor under the category of cost of acquisition/improvement.
Jyoti Rakesh Kapoor Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We find merits in the arguments of the assessee for the reason that the assessee has gifted her 50% share in the property in favour of her brother in law in pursuance of family arrangement between the family members for acquiring separate property for each family member. The […]
Sanjaykumar Footermal Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) In the instant case it is crystal clear that by virtue of agreement for sale dt. 24-04-2008, and making a part payment, the assessee has acquired irrevocable tight, title and interest including possession in the house property in the form of Godown. The registration of the property which […]
