Divya Raghavan Vijayan Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) even though in the order sheet it is written by the ACIT Circle-3 Kalyan that he had issued the 143(2) notice on Aug 30th 2015, but in the same file, I find that the Chief Commissioner has transferred the jurisdiction of assessee’s case from ITO ward-33, Thane to […]
ACIT Vs Ajit Anantrao Pawar (ITAT Mumbai) The facts stated hereinabove by the ld. AR are not in dispute with regard to framing of two independent section 153C assessments for each assessment year. It is not in dispute that six independent appeals were filed by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) and accordingly, numbered thereon […]
ITAT Mumbai held that no additions or disallowances can be made u/s. 153C of the Income Tax Act in absence of any incriminating material found during the search on a third person.
ITAT Mumbai held that income earned from offshore supply of escalators and elevators is not taxable in India as assesse didn’t carried out any operations in India.
Mumbai ITAT holds that while computing capital gains arising on transfer of a capital asset received by the Assessee under a will, the indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with respect to the year in which the first owner held the asset
Vikas Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that if the cash deposited in assessee’s bank account has already been taxed in the hands of M/s. Kareem’s Hospitality Pvt. Ltd (employer of assessee) or in the hands of the director of the assessee company Mr. Kareem Dhanani then no addition is warranted in the hands […]
Transindia Freight Services Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that going by the principle of consistency in the stand taken by the Revenue in earlier as well as subsequent assessment years in scrutiny assessment proceedings, we hold that the income received from car rental of Rs.6,00,000/- is to be assessed as “income from […]
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessment order passed in variation of the procedures prescribed u/s. 144B of the Income Tax Act would render the assessment order as non est.
ITAT Mumbai held that that the ‘marked to market loss’ is not a notional loss and is, therefore, allowable expenditure.
ITAT Mumbai held that while determining the amount of deemed dividend under Explanation 2 to Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, the current profit is not to be included to be part of accumulated profit.
