Karmic Labs Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We note that the assessee has issued shares at a premium. In order to ascertain the market value of the shares, the assessee adopted DCF method, as prescribed under Rule 11UA r.w.s 56(2) of the Act and accordingly, the shares were issued at a premium. According to […]
The issue under consideration is whether the cancellation of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A) is justified in law?
The issue under consideration is whether the addition made by CIT(A) on account of bogus purchases at rate of 12.5% of purchase u/s 69C is justified in law?
Laxmi Ventures (India) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The issue under consideration is whether disallowance made against the foreign expense incurred for the foreign travelling of the officer is justified in law? ITAT states that, the assessee had debited a sum on account of foreign travelling expenses for Europe visit and a sum on account […]
The issue under consideration is whether the assessment order passed without serving of the notice u/s 143(2) on correct address as mentioned in ITR is considered as Valid order?
ITAT hold that payment of TDS by the assessee would relate back to the date of presentation of cheques by the assessee to the banker. Accordingly, TDS-CPC, Ghaziabad is directed to revise the aforesaid intimation by taking the date of tender of cheques by the assessee as the actual date of payment and re-compute interest payable by the assessee, if any. The interest demand u/s 220(2) being consequential in nature, may also be recomputed. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee allowed.
The issue under consideration is whether the Assessment Order against non-existent entities will be considered as valid in law?
The issue under consideration is whether the assessee is seeking change in Income Tax Return by way of raising additional grounds of appeal in front of the tribunal and not filing Revised return will be entertained by the Tribunal?
Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) We find that the assessee had claimed business promotion expenses as revenue expenditure which was sought to be treated by the ld. AO as capital expenditure. This disallowance was ultimately sustained by the Tribunal in the quantum appellate proceedings. We find that the issue in dispute was whether […]
Reopening of assessment to assess the remuneration under the head ‘income from salary’ instead of ‘income from other sources’ constitutes difference of opinion and the AO is not permitted to reopen the assessment on difference of opinion
