On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the action of the A.O. in making an addition of Rs. 2,,88,65,116/- treating the capital gain arising as a result of sale of flat No. 1807, Ashok Towers, Mumbai, as short term capital gain
The present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, Mumbai, dated 20.04.2016, for A.Ys 2006-07 and 2007-08, which in itself arises from the orders passed by the A.O under Sec. 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income-tax act, 1961 (for short „Act‟), each dated 14.03.2014. That as certain common issues are involved in the appeals, therefore, they are taken up and disposed of by way of a consolidate order. We shall first take up the appeal for A.Y. 2006-07, wherein the assessee assailing the order of the CIT(A) had raised before us the following grounds of appeal
These appeals are filed by the Revenue and cross objections by assessee against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 21, Mumbai dated 16.06.2016 for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2012-13.
Supermax Personal Care Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) We are of the opinion that the endeavor of the departmental officers to tax the transaction in question as capital gains was not supported by the any legal base.First and foremost there was no transfer of capital asset,which is the basis for invoking the provisions of […]
Recently, in Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT [ITA No.6680/Mum/2012 with ITA No.5553/Mum/2014 and ITA No.5479/Mum/2015, A.Y.: 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13, decided on 26.07.2018], briefly stated, the assessee-company was engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of pharmaceuticals products filed its return of income for A.Y. 2005-06 on 31.10.2005
Everest Industries Limited Vs JCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The perusal of the Package Scheme of Incentive, 1993 reflect that the scheme was formulated to give incentive for setting up the industries in certain belts of Maharashtra and for the purpose of working out the amount of subsidy, though the cost of eligible investment was taken as […]
Reuters case: When a duty is cast on the payer to deduct tax at source, on failure of the payer to do so, no interest can be imposed on the payee under Section 234B of the Act
Lal Nathirmal Moolchandani Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We find that the assessee has received an interest on refund for assessment year 2009-10 in the present assessment year on 31.03.2011. The said cheque was encashed subsequently. Subsequently, vide assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) on 08.12.2011 for the same assessment year a total demand of Rs.24,67,560/- was […]
Bennett Coleman & Co. case: where the consideration was not money but equity shares and debentures, the transaction was not a Sale but an Exchange, the provisions of Section 50B were not applicable
As the sale of starter kits/sim cards is purely a purchase/sale transaction on principal-to-principal basis and there is no relationship of agency, hence no obligation was cast upon the assessee to have deducted tax at source under Sec. 194H in respect of the discounts given to the distributors on the sale of the same.
