Bhavani Gems Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) We have heard the rival contentions and perused relevant material on record including cited orders of Tribunal in assessee’s case for different years. Upon perusal of the same, we find strength in the argument of Ld. AR since the assessee’s claim for additional depreciation has been allowed in subsequent […]
It was held that where DMAT account and contract note showed details of share transaction, and Assessing Officer had not proved said transaction as bogus, capital gain earned on said transaction could not be treated as unaccounted income u/s 68.
Phraseology of section 14A of the Act itself specifies that the satisfaction contemplated is required to be arrived at having regard to the accounts, an approach which is conspicuous by its absence in the present case.
ACIT Vs Krishna C. Tandon (HUF) (ITAT Mumbai) In this case penalty proceedings were initiated during quantum assessment for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The assessee contested the same on the premises that full particulars were furnished in the return of income and there was no concealment of income and mere change of head of income […]
A bare perusal of nature of services, prima facie, reveals that the said services were of general in nature which is usually provided by the landlord to the tenant. Therefore, amenity charges, in our opinion, being part and parcel of same transaction, were asses sable as Income from House Property.
Assessing Officer that the actual investment made in the new residential house is Rs. 20 lakh, but, he has also filed a revised computation of income on 20th November 2012, offering taxable long term capital gain at a higher figure of Rs. 24,98,488. It is also a fact on record that the Assessing Officer has accepted the income shown in the revised computation of income. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts of the present case, we are of the view that the explanation of the assessee to the effect that investment shown in new house at Rs. 25 lakh was due to a bonafide mistake is acceptable.
Dy. CIT Vs. Fagioli India (P) Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) In this case assessing officers main allegation is that two parties from whom appellant made purchases are involved in providing accommodation entries as per the list published by Maharashtra Sales Tax Department. On the other hand, assessee has furnished certain evidences in the form of purchase […]
Spectrum Coal & Power Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai); We noted that coal beneficiation has been defined as cost effective and significant step towards improving power plant efficiency and reducing the GHG emissions from the coal fired power plants in India would be to increase the availability of clean beneficiated coals using appropriate beneficiation technologies. […]
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Mumbai) has held that, Income from Capital Asset is Capital Gain and not business Income even if Assessee was regularly booking Flats and Selling the same. Any kind of Income from Capital Assets held by the Assessee whether or not connected with his business of profession earned must be treated as capital gain.
Receipt of grant from US Aid through ICICI to create an institutional environment for technological innovations could not be regarded as meeting of cost of specific asset by Central Government or State Government or any authority established by any law in India or any other person, so as to cause Explanation 10 to section 43(1) get attracted to assessee’s case.
