ACIT vs. Ishverlal Manmohandas Kanakia (ITAT Mumbai) – The issue raised by the Assessee is that while computing capital gain cost of improvement should also be capable of being determined. The dispute in the case decided by Tribunal in the case of Jethalal D.Mehtha (supra) and Maheshwar Prasad-2 CHS Ltd. (supra) was while computing capital gain cost of acquisition of the capital asset was not capable of determination.
ITO Vs. Hindustan Oil Exploration Co. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- Definition given in Explanation to sec. 42, section 293A as well as in various clauses of Production Sharing Contract it does not require to undergo any process of any physical or composition change but after the process of separation of gas, water and other sedimentary elements become commercial commodity. Therefore, commercial production of mineral oil as per sec. 80IB (9) involves the activity of extracting oil from underneath of surface and transport it for sale and nothing else.
ACIT Vs. Agility Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- ITAT held that the sharing of net revenues (i.e., amounts billed to customers less third party costs) in a 5o:5o ratio between the origin and destination companies in a consistent manner in controlled as well as uncontrolled transactions, constitutes a comparable uncontrolled price (CUP). In coming to its conclusion, the Tribunal took into account the fact that the 5o:5o model is a common industry practice.
Ultramarine & Pigments Ltd. V/s ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The undisputed fact is that there are no fresh loans or investments during the year. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in K. Raheja Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (supra) laid down that when the Revenue cannot point out as to how interest on borrowed funds was attributable to the earning of dividend income which was exempt under section 10(33) of the Act (as it then stood)’ no disallowance can be made.
NRB Bearings Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) -The Tax Payer was conducting manufacturing activities at four different locations across India. It had installed additional machinery to increase capacity at one of the locations i.e. the Aurangabad unit. The assessee claimed additional depreciation on the new machinery as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act which permits the assessee to additional depreciation on installation of new machinery. The same was allowed by the Tax Officers (TO) as well.
First of all, we will consider the second part of the submission i.e. since the person to whom the payment was made has already offered the same for taxation, hence provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked. This is not correct. Because the decision in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [supra] was rendered under the provisions of sec.201. Secondly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide para-10 has clearly mentioned that in view of Circular No.275/201/95-IT(Clause (b) of Explanation 1 to sec.115JB) dated 29-1-1997 no demand u/s.201[1] could be enforced after the deductor has satisfied the officer that taxes due have been paid by the deductee assessee.
Shri Pradeep Kumr O Bhala Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – The submission is considered and the decisions are perused. There is no denying fact that, the gift has come through banking channel, the donor has filed return showing taxable income, however, the fact that has not been denied by the appellant is that, he is not aware of anything about the donor. Neither the donor is available at the address given nor has he been produced for examination. The appellant is not even aware of the activities of the donor and his age. The donor is not related to the appellant. Owning of Pan and filing of return is not a conclusive proof that, the gift is genuine. Payment through banking channel cannot be a conclusive proof of the genuineness of the gift.
ITO Vs. United Estate P. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- The Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly observed in the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [supra] that for making an addition under clause (b) of Explanation 1 to sec.115JB two conditions must be satisfied jointly. (1)(a) There must be a debit of the amount to the profit & loss account, (clause (b) of Explanation 1 to sec.115JB) the amount so debited must be carried to the reserve. Further, the reserve contemplated by clause (b) of Explanation 1 to sec.115JB is required to be carried through the profit & loss account.
Vijay Corporation Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – Provisions of Sec. 143(3) of the Act contemplates that the AO shall pass an order of assessment in writing. The requirement of signature of the AO is therefore a legal requirement. The omission to sign the order of assessmenet cannot be explained by relying on the provisions of Sec.292B of the Act.
Optsoe Consultant Private Limited Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- The dispute is regarding allow ability of expenditure amounting to Rs. 40,20,822/- on account of payments made to the directors as sub-contract charges. The assessee co had been incorporated for undertaking contracts for providing various liaisoning activities in the telecom sector. It had entered into a contract with Chinese company, M/s. ZTE Corporation for providing such services as per which it had received contract charges of Rs. 41,18,969/-.
