M/s. V.K. Lalco Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) In this case the penalty was levied for wrong claim of TDS in the return of income to the tune of Rs.3,48,120/- without offering the corresponding income to tax. In fact this TDS did not belong to the assessee but appeared in the form No. 26AS […]
Since CIT(A) had admitted additional evidences without complying with rule 46A which was fatal to sustaining of appellate order passed by CIT(A), therefore, the matter was restored to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Where amount received by assessee in excess of advance was on account of compensation for extinction of its right to sue the owner, the receipt was a Capital receipt not chargeable to tax.
Assessee was in the business of development of real estate projects and letting of property was not the exclusive business of assessee, therefore, the rental income earned by assessee was rightly treated as income under the head ‘House Property’ instead of ‘business income’.
Where TPO was not convinced with the benchmarking of international transaction of assessee, he should have independently benchmarked the arm’s length price of royalty payment by adopting any one of the prescribed methods which he had failed to do and determined arm’s length price at nil on purely ad–hoc basis without assigning any valid and acceptable reason, therefore, the addition made on account of adjustment made to the arm’s length price of royalty payment was to be deleted.
ITO Vs M/s Ninja Securities Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee case does not fall under the above category of genuine client code modifications allowed by NSE as we have seen that in large number of client code modifications, there are no similarity between wrong code and correct code and secondly there are repetitive client […]
Time Media & Entertainment LLP Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) In this case there was an unusual and sudden spurt in client code modifications in the month of March 2010 undertaken by Brokers in Stock Exchanges. The assessee had also suffered F&O Loss of Rs.31,98,597.50 through Broker Inventure for transactions undertaken through NSE in the month […]
Pyaribai K Jain Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) Leasehold right allotted against right of agricultural land cannot be considered as agricultural land and, therefore, profit on transfer of such leasehold right was taxable under the head ‘capital gains’, however, Assessing Officer was not correct in not allowing cost of acquisition to assessee while computing long-term […]
ITO Vs M/s Ami Riddhi Chem Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee claim to have made purchases of Rs.34,92,40,689/-, therefore, the assessee was asked to furnish the details of purchases made from these parties. The notices issued/served under section 133(6) of the Act, however, there was no reply from the concerned parties. The facts are […]
V.R.Enterprises Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We find that assessee was in possession of primary purchase documents and the payments to the suppliers was through banking channels. The assessee had established corresponding sales before Ld. AO. The books of accounts were audited wherein quantitative details of stock was provided. We are of the considered opinion that […]
