Explore ITAT Mumbai decision in ITO vs. Gama Entertainment Systems Pvt. Ltd. Understanding Section 68 implications on share premium. Full analysis and conclusion.
ITAT find that jewelry has been found during the course of search from the possession of the assessee. The jewellery was inventorised. The claim of the assessee that this has been received as a gift from relatives and friends is not at all substantiated but merely remained a claim. In view of this we do not find any infirmity in the orders of the learned lower authorities in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,867,098/– u/s 69B of the act after granting benefit of 500 g of gold jewellery to the assessee in terms of CBDT instruction number 1916.
ITAT held that deduction under Section 80IB of Income Tax Act, 1961 allowable on scrap generated during the manufacturing process.
As assessee is following mercantile system of accounting, liability which has arisen during the year under consideration is allowable even though the same may have to be discharged at a future date.
Payment received by the taxpayer towards GSM system of which software was an inseparable part, which is incapable of independent use, could not be classified as payment towards Royalty
It is not possible to show the veracity of many expenses, because such expenses are running, on continuous basis for each and every trip. He further held that unless any major infirmity or irregularity can be found and proved, expenses cannot be doubted.
CBDT Circular no. 9/2020 dated 22/04/2020, question no. 19, clearly enables the assessee to avail Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme to avail VSV only for one proceeding , even when two parallel proceedings were pending before appellate forums.
Interest on refund amount, under section 244A of the Act, is receivable up to the date of issue of refund cheque.
Osian’s Connoisseurs of Art Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that once interim resolution professional has been appointed by the NCLT, then earlier Ld. counsel authorized by the Management of the Company has no authority to represent the case and therefore adjournment sought on his behalf was accordingly rejected. The Tribunal in ITA […]
The only fault of the assessee was of claiming Tax deducted at source wrongly. The learned Assessing Officer should have refused the credit of such TDS but should not have taxed interest income in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, even on the merits the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied.
