Hamilton Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Whether Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in conferring the interest of Rs.12,31,304/- under section 234C of the Income tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that the book profit includes capital gain income which arose in 4h quarter therefore the liability to pay advance tax arise only on […]
Compensation so received by the assessee company would only go to reduce the cost of project as it is effectively meant to cover up for the expenses and investments incurred by the assessee for the said project. Hence, the receipt of compensation would be capital in nature and would go to reduce the cost of project.
Section 23(5) of Income Tax Act (Notional Rent Tax on Real Estate unsold flats) introduced from 01/04/2018 and would be applicable only from A.Y.2018-19 onwards.
Otis Elevator Company (India) Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that given the limited scope of section 154 for rectification of mistakes apparent on record and given the fact that the period to be excluded for grant of interest has not yet been taken a call on by the PCCIT/CCIT/PCIT or the CIT, the […]
ITAT held that addition of loss from traded in penny stock not justified if no information about engagement of assessee in manipulative activities and details of purchase/sales of shares submitted by him was not doubted.
Interest income earned by assessee on its investments with a co-operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) of Act.
Maharashtra Film Stage and Cultural Development Corporation Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee had written off the bad debt as per the Board Resolution dt.5.6.2009 after the closing of books of accounts. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim on the ground that books of accounts were closed on 31.3.2009 whereas bad debts were […]
Unless, there is an evidence of remission or cessation of liability, provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act does not apply.
Held that as per agreement, the assessee will hand over physical possession of the property only after the purchaser obtains Intimation of Disapproval. Hence, till the property is not transferred as per the terms of agreement, capital gain on the same cannot be taxed.
Held that cash withdrawn by the assessee from the bank was much more than the amount deposited due to demonetization. Further, there is no findings by the authorities that this cash available with the assessee was invested or utilised for any other purpose. Hence, addition u/s 69A unsustainable
