Manish Manohardas Asrani Vs ITO Int Tax Ward (ITAT Mumbai) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, ruled in favor of the assessee, Manish Manohardas Asrani, quashing a penalty of ₹44,90,048 levied under Section 270A(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal held that the penalty notice lacked specificity regarding the charge—whether it pertained […]
ITAT Mumbai upholds deletion of additions u/s 68 for trading in penny stocks. Assessee provided valid evidence, and AO failed to counter claims with proof.
ITAT Mumbai held that Goods and Services Tax (GST) amount while computing presumptive income under section 44B of the Income Tax Act cannot be included. Thus, issue decided in favour of assessee.
ITAT Mumbai deleted additions made under section 43CA of the Income Tax Act by considering the stamp duty value on the date of registration of agreement as prescribed under section 43CA(3) of the Income Tax Act.
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.
