bdul Razzak A Rajkotia Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- There is no material worth the name found at the time of search divulging the undisclosed income earned by the assessee by way of unrecorded sales. Seized material relates to unrecorded sale by the `Compay’ and that too for a period of 18 days from 0 1.04.2003 to 18.04.2003.
The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s A F Ferguson & Co. (ITAT Mumbai)- The learned Counsel for the assessee contended that the instant penalty be also not sustained in view of the order passed by the Tribunal in assessment year 2001-2002. Copy of the said order was placed on record.
ITO Vs M/s Mechanalysis (India) Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- Whether when the agency agreement between the assessee and the non-resident continues even after expiry but no royalty is paid during this period, compensation paid to the assessee after many years later for formal termination of the agreement is akin to loss of profit-making apparatus, and thus, is capital receipt?
Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- It is held that redemption of preference shares amounts to ‘transfer’ of a capital asset under the Income-tax Act and any loss on redemption thereon would thus be allowable as a capital loss.
ACIT Vs. Sumit P. Bhattacharya (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessee was an employee of M/s Procter and Gamble India Ltd., which is a group company of Procter and Gamble of USA. The company had given appreciation rights to the assessee. As regards the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmender Textiles, 306 ITR 307, we find that CIT(A) as well as ITAT have not cancelled penalty on the ground of mens rea, therefore, the judgment of the Apex Court in this case is not applicable to the facts of the case under consideration. Contrary to that, the case under consideration is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. Cited supra. In the light of above discussion, we hereby cancel the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
CIT (DR)- XII, ITAT Vs. Simoni Gems (ITAT Mumbai) -In appeal assessee raised preliminary objection that the notice u/s 143(2) was not issued within the prescribed period of 12 months and AO accepted that the notice under 143(2) notice was not been issued in time. Accordingly, the Tribunal, relying on Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362 (SC), dismissed the department’s appeal without going into the merits of the appeal.
DCIT Vs. M/S. Essar Oil Limited (ITAT Mumbai)- Whether the profits of Oman PE and the loss of Qatar PE of the taxpayer are to be excluded for tax purposes in India, as per Article 7 of respective DTAAs?
Jet Air (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for disposal afresh since the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee’s appeal without adjudicating upon the question as to whether the law to s 248, as amended with effect from 1 June 2007, was applicable or not merely on the ground that it had never approached the AO for a certificate under s 195(2) for the remittance of the amount without the deduction of tax.
ACIT Vs Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)- Accreditation does not allow the accredited product to use, or have a right to use, a trademark, nor any information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience – or, for that purpose, use or right to use of anything falling in any other category of clause (a).
Triumph International Finance I Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- the undisclosed income determined in the case of the assessee is not as a result of disallowing any claim of the assesse because the same is not allowable as per the provisions of law but undisclosed income has been determined on the basis of the evidences found during the course of search, which has established the fact that the true nature of transactions have not been recorded by the assessee in the books of account and the same has resulted the undisclosed income.
