Galaxy Surfactants Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Once an Assessing Officer prepares a draft assessment order, that is the end of his domain of powers so far as framing of assessment is concerned- unless of course there are any directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel which are required to be implemented by the Assessing Officer. […]
Pooja Marketing Vs. Pr. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case before us, the assessee had offered its entire income including income by way of winnings from lotteries on unsold lottery tickets, as income chargeable under the head ―Profits and gains of business or profession“. However, the ld PCIT had sought to treat the income […]
Dow Agrosciences India Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) We shall now deal with the observation of the TPO/DRP that the approval provided by the RBI would not constitute a valid CUP data, since the RBI does not take into account the transfer pricing provisions to determine the appropriate rates which can be considered as […]
Batliboi Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Assessee has received total sum of Rs.11,14,00,000/- from single purchaser on sale of land (Rs.5,72,84,600/-), towards building (Rs.64,90,400/-) and sale of additional FSI (Rs.4,76,25,000/-). We find that the total sale consideration of Rs.11.14 Crores has not been doubted by the Revenue. Admittedly, the aforesaid break-up of consideration has been […]
Aditya Balkrishna Shroff Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case, it is not even in dispute, and rightly so, that the receipt is in question is in the capital field but the Assessing Officer has taxed it on the basis that “the gain on realization of loan would partake character of an income under […]
Rockcastle Property Private Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) As per the provisions of Section 23(1)(b), annual value shall be deemed to be the actual rent received or receivable by the assessee. The proviso provides for deduction of municipal taxes levied by any local authority. As per Explanation, the actual rent received or receivable would not […]
Seth Carbon and Alloys Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) We find that assessee by furnishing all the aforesaid documents had duly explained the nature and source of credit in the form of share capital and share premium received from the aforesaid two shareholders. From the balance sheet of the shareholders, it could be seen […]
DCIT Vs Bengal Shapoorji Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Sec. 23(5) of the Act has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2018. In terms of the said section, it is prescribed that ‘where the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant thereto is held as stock-in-trade and the property or any […]
Since there was no allegation by the departmental authorities that assessee had violated any of the conditions of the provisions of sections 11, 12 and 13, except, the allegation that assessee was a mutual concern and even applying the rule of consistency, assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11 had to be allowed.
The dominant object of assessee’s investment in group concerns was to exercise business control by way of acquiring shareholding and not to earn the dividend. Assessee’s activity of holding such investment constituted business activity and therefore, the interest would be fully deductible u/s 36(1)(iii).
