Ld. AR has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) in not allowing hearing of appeal filed by the assessee merely on the basis of alleged default of not having filed electronically.
This appeal by the Assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-5, Mumbai, (in short CIT(A)) in appeal No. CIT(A)-5/DCIT-2(2)/IT-118/2006-07 dated 15-11-2011. The Assessment was framed by the Deputy Commissioner, Circle-2(2), Mumbai (in short DCIT) for the assessment year 2004-05 vide order even dated 18-12-2006 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act).
Where AO was of view that assessee had made bogus purchase on the ground that no proof of transportation and lorry receipt was filed, however, AO was not justified in making addition of 25% of purchase amount and addition was to be restricted to 5% of purchase.
Challenging the order,dated 30/09/2016 CIT(A)- Mumbai-I the assessee has filed the present appeal.Assessee-Company,engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of shaving products and systems,filed its original return of income on 30/11/2011 declaring total Loss at Rs.19.78 crores.The Assessing Officer (AO)completed assessment u/s. 143 (3) r.w.s. 92CA of the Act on 31/03/2016 determining income of the assessee at Rs.32,68,71,48,000/-
Mumbai International Airport : Upfront fees paid to the Airports Authority of India (AAI) is a commercial right entitled to depreciation @ 25% relating to intangible assets
Where amount forfeited by assessee against cancellation of booking of flat was subject-matter of civil suit, it could not be said that there was cessation of liability so as to tax such amount as assessee’s income.
Cromption Greaves Limited Vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) This M.A. has been filed by the assessee seeking recall of the order of the tribunal in ITA no. 1994/Mum/2013 dated 01-02-2016 . The learned counsel for the assessee pressed only one ground before the Bench that the tribunal order dated 01-02-2016 was passed beyond period of 90 […]
There is no bar / restriction in the provisions of section 139(5) of the Act that the assessee cannot file a revised return of income after issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. It is trite law, the assessee can file a revised return of income even in course of the assessment proceedings, provided, the time limit prescribed under section 139(5) of the Act is available. That being the case, the revised return of income filed by the assessee under section 139(5) of the Act cannot be held as invalid.
This appeal, filed by the assesseee, being ITA No. 2960/Mum/2016, is directed against the appellate order dated 16.02.2016 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Thane (hereinafter called the CIT(A)), for assessment year 2011-12, appellate proceedings had arisen before learned CIT(A) from the assessment order dated 25.03.2014 passed by learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter called the AO) u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act).
Granting tax relief to Deloitte India, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the provisions relating to Tax deduction at Source (TDS) are not applicable to the professional fee paid by them to its Group Entities in US and Singapore.
