Hon’ble Bombay HC, in the case of DIT v/s Besix Kier Dabhol, has held that the Revenue has no power to re-characterize a transaction entered into by the Assessee. Therefore admittedly, the AO or the TPO are not empowered to convert and re-characterize a transaction of share application into a loan transaction.
It is well established that the reasons recorded by the AO cannot be further be substituted or added or deleted. We are of the view that the reference to market value of the flat as determined by stamp duty valuation authority also cannot justify initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act, as the validity of reassessment has to be tested only on the basis of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer before issuing notice under section 148 of the Act and those reasons cannot be further improved.
Air India Air Transport Services Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) We find some force in the submission of assessee that assessee being a Public sector company Act had to submit its audit report in Form 3CA in which report u/s 44AB is required to be submitted for the said purpose. The Tax Audit report u/s […]
St. Francis De Sales Church Trust Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) On a perusal of order of Ld.CIT (A) we find that the Ld.CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, as un-admitted being not satisfied with the reasons adduced by the assessee for delay of 41 months in filing the appeal. The assessee explained that “It […]
Standard Industries Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of expenditure incurred towards the architect fees of ₹33,67,200/- while computing capital gain on transfer of development right. The Assessing Officer was of the view that architect fees cannot be considered as incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer as […]
Versova Kokni Sunni Jamat Trust Vs Centralised Processing Centre (ITAT Mumbai) CIT(A), though admitted that assessee is not registered under section 12A of the Act and thus no benefit of exemption could be allowed to the assessee under section 11 of the Act, rejected the contention of the assessee that irrespective of status of registration […]
Once it is held that there is no error in the order of ld. AO, the ld. PCIT would be precluded from assuming revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act as one of the twin conditions mandated in section 263 is not satisfied.
ACIT Vs Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) The issue in dispute in these both appeal is whether the transponder charges paid by the assessee to three entities listed above is in the nature of the ‘royalty’ and liable for withholding tax. In respect of the three above listed entities, the Tribunal (supra) has […]
Shantilal S Jain, HUF Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) In this case CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on technical ground as the assessee has not file the same electronically as per Rule 45 of the Income-tax Rule. It appears that only one notice was issued by the CIT(A) to the assessee and the status of the […]
Meeta Hasmukh Gandhi Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) From the details, it is evident that assessee is claiming cost of improvement, which are consumable items on account of furnishing sofa etc. The authorities below are correct that these items cannot be considered as cost of improvement for computation of capital gain. FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER […]
