ITAT Mumbai held that apart from the purchase and sale deeds of conveyance and 7/12 extracts from land revenue records, no other evidence has been brought on record by the assessee of having cultivated the land or carrying any agricultural activity. Accordingly, the same is treated as ‘capital asset’.
DCIT Vs L & T Access Distribution Services Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) On the one hand, it is argued by the Ld. A.R. for the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) that the expenditure of Rs.13.30 crores is for the purpose of setting up of the business of the assessee, but at the same time argued that […]
We notice that there is nothing on record to show that the AO has examined this aspect at all. We noticed that the AO had asked for details of sales and expenses, but the assessee has furnished only the Profit and Loss account.
ITAT Mumbai held that in the absence of any evidence on allegation that some person provided the entry to convert unaccounted money for getting benefit of LTCG in the grab of exempt LTCG u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act the same cannot be accepted.
Atlantic Bio Medical Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Assessee had undisputedly filed the return of income electronically but under bonafide belief that the Form 10CCB was to be filed manually with the AO as and when required thus failed to file the same electronically along with the return of income. No doubt ignorance of […]
Notice could be issued under section 148 in relation to search and seizure as assessee was one of the investor/partner along with the others to acquire the land for TDR generation which could not be disputed and was admitted in the post search statement by the director and the assessee was provided the benefit of cross examination of the director to test check the authenticity of the transactions.
Addition made by the lower authorities to the extent of opening balance of share premium of Rs.63,32,28,987/- u/s 68 in AY 2018-19 was unjustified as share premium received in earlier years had already been examined and verified in the income-tax assessments framed u/s 143(3) and the explanation furnished by assessee had been accepted.
ITAT Mumbai held that NABARD has acted as nodal or implementing agency for the schemes framed by GOI. Hence the amounts transferred to Tribal Development Fund/Watershed Development Fund are diverted at source itself and hence not taxable in the hands of the assessee.
Income from assets given on lease, though offered to tax under normal provisions, was not routed through Profit and Loss Account and the accounting treatment given by assessee was in accordance with mandatory AS-19 which mandated assessee to reflect investment in asset under finance lease as lease receivable in balance-sheet on asset side under the head loans and advances.
ACIT Vs Padmshree Dr. D.Y. Patil University (ITAT Mumbai) Before us, the main plea of the Ld. CIT-DR was that the development fee collected by the assessee trust on the basis of a single fee receipt from the students, shows that the students didn’t had any option but to mandatorily give/remit the fees (including the […]
