Assessee filed details of statement showing provision for mark to market loss and also submitted a detailed note on mark to market loss on outstanding position. Assessee submitted that it had made provisions for loss following accepted accounting principles as per the Guidance Note on ‘Accounting for Equity Index & Equity Stock Futures and Options’ issued by ICAI and claimed the loss as deductable business expenditure.
M/s. Karanja Terminal & Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Interest income received by the assessee from the FDRs/ICDs made out of funds are inextricably linked to the development of port terminal and other infrastructure at Karanja Creek which is yet to be completed and commissioned. We would like to add that the these […]
Even though amendment was given a retrospective effect but by that time assessee had already done the transactions without complying section 194J for payment made towards data line charges, therefore, assessee could not be held to have violated the provisions of section 194J, because the law cannot possibly compel a person to do something which is impossible to perform.
Where assessee failed to show that delay in filing the appeal was not attributable to any factors which were beyond its control, plea raised by assessee for condoning the delay in filing appeal was dismissed.
Since AO had completed the assessment in the name of a company which had merged and was not in existence on the date the assessment order was passed, therefore, the assessment was invalid and the same was not a curable defect under section 292B.
Shree Laxmi Estate Pvt.Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Since assessee had transferred pursuant to registration of the agreement was only the rights in the flat/ office (which was under construction) and not the property per se hence, there was no transfer of any land or building or both by the assessee in favour of […]
Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust Vs CIT (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case, the case sought to be made out by the Commissioner is that the violation carried out by the assessee would lead to denial of exemption u/s. 11 & 13 of the Act and, therefore, the pre-requisite of section 12AA(3) of the Act […]
M/s M. J. Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The facts in brief are that the Collector of customs levied customs duty and penalty on the goods imported by the assessee in F.Y. 1988-89 vide order dated 28th January 1994 and subsequently, levied interest for not paying the customs duty and penalty in time. […]
Explore the ITAT Mumbai judgment in Anandkumar Jain vs ITO, highlighting rectification under Section 154 for deduction under Section 80HHC based on subsequent Supreme Court decisions.
The assessee had challenged reopening of assessment on two grounds. The CIT(A) had accepted the arguments of the assessee, in light of provisions of section 147 of the Act, and the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 29/12/2018 and came to the conclusion that the assessment has been reopened on change of opinion without there being any tangible material, in the possession of the AO, which suggest escapement of income.
