ITAT Mumbai held that while computing capital gains arising of transfer of capital asset acquired by the assessee under the will, the indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with respect to the year in which the previous owner first held the asset.
ITAT Mumbai held that charges received for carrying out of re-fabrication of bushing doesn’t tantamount to ‘make available of technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or process’ and hence cannot be taxed under Article 12 of Indo-Singapore tax treaty.
ITAT Mumbai held that exemption provisions of section 54F of the Income Tax Act are beneficial provisions and are to be construed liberally. Accordingly, as assesse invested in one residential property, exemption u/s 54F duly available.
ITAT Mumbai held that Section 10AA does not prescribe any time limit for realization of export proceeds. Hence, the benefit of Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied merely because the export proceeds were realized after the expiry of 6 months from the end of relevant previous year in which export sales were made.
ITAT Mumbai held that initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without informing the charges framed for initiation of the same via statutory notice renders the entire proceeding inacceptable.
Jetkool Exports India Vs National E-Assessment Centre (ITAT Mumbai) It is an admitted fact that the assessee being a partnership firm was entitled to deduction in respect of the remuneration payable to the partners as per clause 7 of the Partnership Deed. This in turn depends on the provision of Income Tax Act, 1961 which […]
AO is only entitled to reopen assessment, but he cannot review an assessment in the sense that there cannot be a rethinking or different opinion on the same material, which was the subject matter of the original assessment proceedings.
ITAT Mumbai held that re-opening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act on account of mere change of opinion is bad-in-law and liable to be quashed.
It was held that where an assessee claims deduction of interest paid on capital borrowed, assessee had to show that capital which was borrowed was used for business purpose in relevant year and it did not matter either capital was borrowed in order to acquire a revenue asset or a capital asset.
Sale of prepaid sim cards / recharge vouchers by the assessee to distributors cannot be treated as commission / discount to attract the provisions of section 194H of the Act and hence there cannot be any obligation on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source thereon and consequentially there cannot be any disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
