Triumph International Finance India Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The first appellate authority has rejected the explanation furnished by the assessee for non-compliance of the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act merely for the reason that during penalty proceedings under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act, the assessee has not stated the reasonable cause. […]
Once having accepted this position, the Assessing Officer cannot change his opinion in immediate next assessment year without there being any change in facts and circumstances. We find no infirmity in the impugned order, hence, the same is upheld.
Statement of survey without any corroborative material cannot be the sole reason for addition to income. In this view of the matter, when the addition itself is on such a weak footing, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for such an addition is not at all sustainable.
ACIT Vs Rakhi Properties and Leasing Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) We observe that Assessing Officer completed the assessment based on the reasons recorded for reopening that assessee has received share application money from Mr. Shirish C. Shah, who provides accommodation entries. Subsequently when the remand report filed before Ld.CIT(A) in which Assessing Officer has agreed […]
DCIT Vs Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) The facts clearly shows that the assessee has incurred an expenditure of ₹29,46,886/- on non EDP and EDP equipments under IT expenses. This expenditure is related to purchase of Pen drives, laptop adapters, batteries and hard disk, etc. The learned Assessing Officer made the disallowance […]
ITAT held that lower interest received on loan given to related party for business purpose cannot be subjected to provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act.
Kamla Chandrasingh Kabali Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT find that the claim of the assessee that she has declared income under the IDS 2016 cannot be a tenable explanation as the declaration was not supported by payment of due taxes on the income declared and, therefore, it was an invalid declaration. No other reasonable cause […]
ITAT held that when Indian A.E. is remunerated at arm’s length price (ALP) no further profit attribution is required and the issue of existence of P.E. becomes wholly tax neutral.
ITAT Mumbai held that for claiming exemption under section 54 Date on which possession is by the Assessee should be taken as the date of purchase and further section only require Assessee to purchase/Construct a residential house within the specified period and source of funds is quite irrelevant.
Lotus Ornaments Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Upon perusal of assessee’s financial statements, it could be gathered that assessee’s own funds in the shape of share capital and free reserves far exceeds the investment made by the assessee and therefore, a presumption would run in assessee’s favor that the investments were funded out of […]
