Merely because an assessee makes an extraordinary profit, it would not lead to the conclusion that same was organized/arranged for that the onus remains undischarged by AO, except for presence of suspicious circumstances, as such adjustments made by the AO scaling down the deduction under section 10AA, was, therefore, without sanction of law.
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.
