ITAT Mumbai held that security charges involve supply of manpower only and the same does not involve carrying on of any work. Accordingly, provisions of section 194C are not attracted for expenses claimed as security charges. Hence, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) unjustified.
Assessee failed to establish difference amount specified in Form 26AS and returns despite several opportunities – ITAT upheld addition
ITAT Mumbai held that revisionary power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is not invocable for taking second opinion by Pr. CIT as the facts were already examined by AO.
ITAT Mumbai held that mere delay in filing of Form No. 67 cannot preclude the assessee from claiming the benefit of foreign tax credit in respect of tax paid outside India.
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act without iota of evidence or any cogent reasons is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that capital gain is to be taxed in the hands of legal owner of the property who has transferred the property by registering sale deed. Merely because interest of housing loan is claimed by the son of the assessee, it doesn’t make him the owner of the property.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 271-1-c of the Income Tax Act not imposable when the addition on account of bogus purchases is done on adhoc estimated basis As adhoc estimated based addition doesn’t tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
ITAT Mumbai held that initiation of proceedings under section 153C of the Income Tax Act based on documents impounded during the course of survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act is bad in law and unjustified as no such material were found during the course of search.
ITAT Mumbai held that as there doesn’t exist any formal/ informal agreement between the assessee and AE to share/ reimburse AMP (Advertising Marketing and Promotion) expenses incurred by the assessee in India. The same cannot be held liable as an international transaction.
ITAT Mumbai held that compensation received on account of non-performance of obligation by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) is capital receipt not taxable in the hands of the assessee.
