Shri Deepak Awatram Valecha Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) From the record we found that six plots of agriculture land was bought by the assessee with eight other persons. These plots of land were held for lease by owner and thereafter sold and profit accruing there on was claimed as exempt being income from sale of […]
Here it clearly states that the shares should be a property of the recipient company. To become known as a property the shares, in such a case, should be of some other company and not of its own; because own shares cannot become property as they shall be treated as stock.
Shri Sudhir Menon Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee filed return of income under section 148 of the Act vide letter dated 23.05.2013 stating that the original return of income can be treated as return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. It means that the assessee has filed return of […]
ITO Vs M/s. Iraisaa Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) If we examine the facts of the present case it can be seen that in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under dispute, the assessee had received certain unsecured loan and share capital investment which were examined by the Assessing Officer during the assessment […]
ACIT Vs M/s Goldmohur Design and Apparel Park Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Under the new provisions of section 147, an assessment can be reopened if the Assessing Officer has ‘reason to believe’ that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; but if he wants to do so after a period of four years or merely on […]
Ajay Narayan Bhoir Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) In case of return of income processed under section 143(1), the only condition to be satisfied for reopening is that taxable income has escaped assessment and the assessee’s plea that no fresh material was there before the AO warranting re-opening, was not relevant. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT […]
Where assessee had claimed depreciation on building at revalued figures and later on withdrawn the excess depreciation during the course of assessment proceedings to buy peace, the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was invalid because mere making of wrong claim would not automatically lead to an inference of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.
M/s. Neha Home Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Since assessee was neither the beneficial nor the registered shareholder of the company, the amount so received is not liable to be taxed as deemed dividend. Moreover, the transaction between two group concerns were in the nature of current account and inter banking account containing […]
ince CIT(A) had erred in dismissing appeal filed manually by assessee. CIT(A) was directed to admit appeal filed by assessee by directing assessee to file its appeal in electronic format and also to condone delay
Portfolio management fees and performance linked fees were paid by assessee to his portfolio manager, towards service charges for making investments of his funds and managing portfolio of securities, therefore, same not being an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the shares, had rightly been held by AO as not allowable as a deduction under section 48.
