Rashmikant Baxi (HUF) Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Reference to DVO can be made in two situations; first, the value is adopted based on report of registered valuer and second, in any other case. In assessee’s case, fair market value adopted as on 01.04.1981 is based on valuation report of registered Valuer.
The claim of depreciation made by the assessee in the return of income included depreciation of wind mill @ 80% and additional depreciation @ 20% as per Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee’s claim of additional depreciation was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that additional depreciation
A search and seizure action was carried out at the residence of Devdas A.Alva on 13.9. 2001.During the action,a loose paper file marked A-1was seized.Pages No 1-17 contained a copy of the catering contract entered into by Apporva caterers and Ooters Club and Page No. 26 to 28 were the bills
The ITAT Delhi in the case of ITO vs. Shree Rajeev Goenka that assessee cannot be said to make full and correct disclosure of all the facts if the return of income due date which he mentioned in return filed is different from the due date he claimed during reassessment proceedings.
Correctness of law laid down by Bombay High Court in Ace Builder 281 ITR 210 that deduction u/s 54EC is available to short-term capital gains computed u/s 50 doubted by ITAT Mumbai in the case of ITO Vs Legal Heir of Shri Durgaprasad Agnihotri although it has followed the Judgment of Bombay High Court as required to maintain judicial discipline.
ITAT Mumbai held in ITO Vs Legal Heir of Shri Durgaprasad Agnihotri that to respect the decision given by jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court in CIT vs. Ace Builders (P.) Ltd. [2006] 281 ITR 210 (Bom) it was upholding the decision given by CIT(A) that the exemption u/s 54EC
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of M/s. National Pharmaceuticals vs. ITO that there is no straight jacket formula can be applied to check sufficient reasons for late filing of appeal. It will depend on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of The ACIT vs. M/s Sandeep Shrivastava that AO is not authorized to make any addition merely on account of presumption. In this case because the assessee is Share holder and Director of the company, which sold the property
Mr.Vinod D Motiwala Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- AO has considered the fact that the assessee did not carry on any agricultural activity. In our view, the absence of agricultural activity cannot be considered to be the sole ground to determine the intention of the assessee.
HDFC Bank Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- Also the judgment of Biocon Ltd vs. Dy. CIT [2013] 25 ITR (Trib) 602 (Bang) (SB) in which it was held that discount on the issue of shares to employee under the ESOP is an allowed expenditure u/s 37 is binding on us.
