Balee Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We find that on perusal of page 10 read with page 13 of the factual paper book filed by the assessee comprising of the profit and loss account for the year ended 31/03/2009 and the schedule for the other income thereon, the sum of Rs.3 Crores has […]
DCIT Vs Jainam Investments (ITAT MUMBAI) Under this issue the revenue has challenged the deletion of disallowance of Rs.4,71,19,785/- on of sale shares of M/s. Mahavir Advanced Remedies. The Ld. Representative of the revenue has argued that the CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the disallowance of Rs.4,71,19,785/-, therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) is not justifiable, […]
Bhalchandra Trading P. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) It is not in dispute that assessee had indeed received on-money for sale of flats to the tune of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- during the year under consideration. It is not in dispute that the assessee had incurred certain business expenses out of such on-money which are kept outside […]
Addition of sum paid to Tata Sons Limited towards subscription paid for Brand Equity and Business Promotion Agreement was not justified as the said payment was made annually on a recurring basis for business purpose and the same was allowable as a revenue expense.
Batliboi Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Issue regarding non-taxability of Rs.4,27,43,000/- by treating the same as capital receipt for the purpose of Section 115JB of the Act though not claimed before the lower authorities by the assessee, is being claimed for the first time before this Tribunal. We find that this is purely a legal […]
Sony Pictures Networks India Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) By means of this stay application, the appellant seeks to get extension of demand amounting to Rs.71,12,41,378/- already stayed by the Tribunal for the assessment year 2010-11, till the disposal of appeal. The Ld. counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal vide its order […]
Once the existence of dependent agency permanent establishment was wholly tax-neutral, unless it was shown that the agent had not been paid an arm’s length remuneration, and when it was not the case of AO that the agents had not been paid an arm’s length remuneration, the question regarding the existence of dependent agency permanent establishment, i.e., under article 5(4), was a wholly academic question.
Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) At the outset, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that the assessee was not the owner of the property, therefore, the expenses are not liable to be capitalized in any manner. It is also argued that the assessee is the lease-holder and only claiming the […]
IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) During the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10, the taxpayer made provision for expenses under the head ‘repairs and maintenance’ amounting to Rs. 6 million on which tax was not deducted at source. The taxpayer also made provision for ‘operation and maintenance charges’ amounting to Rs.7 million on which tax […]
Since section 44AD did not obligate assessee to maintain books, the provisions of section 68 could not be invoked where assessee had filed return of income under the provisions of section 44AD without maintaining books of account.
