Explore the case of Tirupati Developers vs ACIT where ITAT Mumbai ruled no section 50C addition for PGBP income in a redevelopment project.
In the case of Cavalcade Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITAT mandates re-evaluation of advances against flat bookings, challenging revenue recognition methods.
Read the detailed analysis of Hiral Exports vs ITO case where ITAT Mumbai deletes Rs.40,82,500 addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act due to failure to rebut evidence.
ITAT Mumbai held that the date of the agreement by no stretch of imagination could be the date of sale of the shares by the assessee. As date of contract of sale would be date of fulfilment of conditions specified in share purchase agreement, date of contract will be treated as date of transfer.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition in case of bogus purchases should be limited to the extent of G.P. rate on purchases. Accordingly, matter remanded with direction to reduce addition only to the extent of profit margin involved in such purchases.
In the case of Aashish Luthra vs. ITO, ITAT Mumbai deletes cash deposit addition after establishing the source as property sale advance received by the father.
In a case involving share purchase discrepancies, ITAT Mumbai directs the AO to re-calculate tax liabilities after verifying relevant documents. Full text of the order provided.
ITAT Mumbai held that for initiation of search assessment on the ‘other person’ recording of valid satisfaction note as required under section 153C of the Income Tax Act is mandatory. In absence of the same, subsequent framing of assessment order u/s 153C/143(3) of the Act is null in the eyes of law.
Mumbai ITAT sets aside penalty under section 271B, citing previous penalty under section 271A for non-maintenance of accounts in Haresh Ghanshyamdas Makhija vs ITO case.
Discover Mumbai ITAT order on Capacite Infra Projects Ltd Vs DCIT, analyzing disallowance of non-genuine/Bogus purchases and its implications on tax assessment.
