ITAT Mumbai held In the case of M/s Vidyasagar Enterprises LLP vs. Principal CIT that AO accepted the loss sustained by the assessee in this project to be allowed to be set off against other income of the assessee after application of mind and considering relevant material on record which was one
The ITAT Mumbai in the case of M/s Parle Bottling Pvt. Ltd. held that the mismatch in description of jewellery as recorded vis a vis as found by valuer cannot be in its own a sole basis for treating mismatched jewellery as unexplained particularly when minor difference in carat weight.
In the case of ACIT Vs. M/s. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ITAT adjudicated two appeals against the order of CIT (A) who allowed the appeal of assessee in part. Both revenue as well as assessee filed appeal against the order of CIT (A).
In the case of M/s NYK Line (India) Ltd Vs. Addl. CIT Mumbai Bench of ITAT have held that payment made to professional firm for conducting a Feasibility Study Report for establishing a BPO business for assessee’s own function
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of DCIT vs. J.B. Eng. Works that that the assessee had transferred independent interests in two different assets and therefore the Capital Gains arising on the assignment of leasehold interest in the land being a capital asset was rightly offered for tax as Long
In the case of Muller & Philpps (India) Ltd vs. ITO, Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai held that the position of law is clear. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft 259 ITR 19, that it is mandatory on the part of the AO to provide the copy of the reasons to the assessee
1.ITAT Mumbai held in the case of Asst. DIT Vs M/s Hongkong and Shanghani Banking Corporation Ltd that the broken period interest paid would be allowed to the assessee after relying the case of the assessee itself in The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd V/s DCIT
ITO Vs M/s Citizen Scales (I) P. Ltd. (ITAT MUMBAI)-The Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We note that in para 4 of the assessment order it has been categorically recorded that there was a mistake in computation of book profit and the same was pointed out by the Assessing Officer
In the case of ACIT Vs. Rukamani Iyer Mumbai Bench of ITAT held that the claim has to be judged in the light of commercial expediency. Relying upon the judgment of CIT v Associated Electrical Agencies {2004} 266 ITR 63 (Mad.)
It is evident from the word ‘or’, occurring for the first time in sub-clause (a) or (b) of clause (6) of section 6, that the two conditions contemplated in those sub-clauses are alternate and these are not cumulative. The fulfillment of either of the conditions would be sufficient to treat an individual or a Hindu undivided family as ‘not ordinarily resident’ in India.
