CIT Vs Late Gopal V. Gorwani (ITAT Mumbai) The Assessing Officer, on perusing the aforesaid terms of the agreement was of the view that flats to be constructed by the vendee on behalf of the co–owners is the non–monetary consideration received by them on account of sale of the property.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of ICICI Ltd. vs. ACIT that in assessee’s own case for the AY 1995-96, the ITAT referred the case of S.B.I. Home Finance Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 6 in which the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held that the leased transactions were genuine.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of J.P MORGAN SERVICES PVT LTD Vs. ITO held that ‘benefits of enduring nature’ is not the sole factor to categorise an expense as capital expense. Expenditure for improving “operational efficiency” regarding Project Management Study will be considered as Revenue in Nature.
Mumbai ITAT held In the case of ITO vs. Ms. Khalil M. Bharwani that the whole transaction of purchase and sale of shares giving rise to long term capital gain has been duly explained step by step and supported by adequate and reliable evidence.
In the case of M/s DDRC SRL Diagnostic P Ltd. Vs. ITO Mumbai Bench of ITAT have held that If the hospitals/laboratories act as mere link between the assessee and patients, then the discount given by the assessee would definitely fall under the category of Commission liable for deduction u/s 194H of the Act.
In the case of M/s Chhaganlal Khimji & Co. Vs. ACIT Mumbai Bench of ITAT have held that that no disallowance can be made u/s.14A when there is no exempt income. ITAT relied upon the judgments of various courts in coming to the conclusion.
The ITAT Mumbai in the case of Monsanto India Limited held that when the assessee at the time of transfer of business agrees for a consideration not to carry on same line of business for a certain period of time , then such an arrangement is definitely a transfer(surrender) of right to carry on business .
The ITAT Mumbai in the case of Dharma Productions Pvt. Ltd. held that the advertisement expenditure incurred after the censor board film certification would be a post-production expenditure not allowable under Rule 9A or 9B of the IT Rules, 1962.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of Ami Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT that the assessee has explained one to one nexus namely cash funds received from sale of Bangalore property, and its utilization for Pune property.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of Zee Media Corporation Limited vs. DCIT that regarding the nature of the news items purchased, we find it is in the common knowledge of every citizen that the news items do not have enduring benefit.
