Amount received by assessee form a closely held company in the guise of an agreement having no existence in the eyes of law, was to be assessed as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) in assessee’s hands on account of his substantial shareholding.
Where assessee developed various educational software/special courses for imparting education, then assessee was correct in claiming depreciation at 60 per cent treating same as software based on the facts that these were specially designed computer softwares
DCIT Vs. Yash Raj Films (P) Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) In this case stand of assessee has been that assessee company had deducted TDS on the negative processing charges paid to Kodak India Ltd. as per the provisions of section 194J of the Act, as the negative processing involves specific tasks of editing, enhancement of quality […]
In our view, the issue relating to the assessees claim of deduction under section 54F, is debatable in nature. Merely because the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings, agreed for disallowance of its claim for deduction under section 54F, will not lead to a conclusion that the assessee has either furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed particulars of his income. That being the case, in our view, it is not a fit cause for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c).
Assumption of jurisdiction over assessee under section 153C on the basis of statement of searched person, however, seized documents making no reference of either the assessee or any transaction entered into by it, was highly misplaced and, therefore, set aside.
It is now well settled that a petitioner / plaintiff is the dominus litis and it is open to him to pursue or abandon his case. Withdrawal cannot be denied except when the person making the prayer has obtained some advantage / benefit, which he seeks to retain.
Challenging the orders dated 14/03/2014 and 14/07/2014 of the CIT(A)-14, Mumbai the assessee has filed the present appeals for the above mentioned Assessment Years(AY.s). Assessee is a foreign bank and is providing banking services.
What has to be seen is the substance of the transaction. Considering the fact that the assessee had suffered loss while carrying out normal business activity i.e. selling its assets. Therefore,we hold that there was no justification for disallowing the loss suffered in the transaction.
Tata Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) -Expenditure in raising loans or issuing debentures would be revenue in nature, irrespective of whether the borrowal is a long term or short term one.
ACIT Vs. M/s. Jeannie Jamshed Madan (ITAT Mumbai) The fact that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries in the Estate of late Shri M.S. Kotwal who is partner in the partnership firm of M/s. Mira Salt Works is not in dispute. The reason for bringing to tax the amount received by the assessee is, […]
