No dis allowance u/s 14A is called for in a case where the shares are held as stock-in-trade as held in India Advantage Securities Ltd. (supra), CCI Ltd. v. JCIT (2012) 20 taxmann.com 196 (Karn.), PCIT v. State Bank of Patiala (2017) 78 taxmann.com 3 (P& H) and CIT v. G.K.K. Capital Markets (P.) Ltd. (2017) 78 taxmann.com 341 (Cal.).
Word own in s. 54F would include only the case where a residential house is fully and wholly owned by assessee and consequently would not include a residential house owned by more than one person.
A.M. Muthiah & Anr. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Issuance of notice under section 143(2) is mandatory, and absence thereof invalidates even a reassessment made in pursuance to section 148 and reliance placed by AO on section 292BB was misplaced.
This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax-30, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in appeal No. CIT(A)-30/AC19(3)/238/2014-15 dated 03-12-2015. The Assessment was framed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
As we are dealing with admissibility of expenditure u/s 37 and not u/s 36(i)(vii) according to which, there must be an expenditure at the first instance which has crystallized during the impugned AY as against deduction u/s 36(i)(vii) which is allowable to the assessee the moment bad debt is written off in the books of accounts, notwithstanding the fact that whether the same has actually become bad or not.
Shri Amod Shivlal Shah Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Assessments ought not to be based merely on the confession obtained at the time of search and seizure and survey operations, but should be based on the evidences/material gathered during the course of search/survey operations or thereafter, while framing the relevant assessments.
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner (Appeals)–21, Mumbai dated 28-3-2016 for the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee in its appeal raised several grounds of appeal both on validity of issue of service of notice under section 143(2)/148 of the Act as well on merits of the disallowances.
Mere making of claim, which was not sustainable in law, by itself, did not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars, unless mens rea was established, therefore, levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified.
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The grievance of Revenue relates to deleting addition of Rs. 7,64,271 made by assessing officer on account of transfer fees and addition made on account of premium received by assessee from its members on utilization of Transfer of Development Rights. 3. The rival contentions have been heard and records perused.
These are appeals filed by the assessee directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-13, Mumbai and order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-14, Mumbai dated 28-1-2016 for the assessment year 2006-07. Since facts are identical and issues are common, these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience.
