Sunshine Metals & Alloys Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Section 68 Bogus share capital- Assessee has furnished the Name, Address, PAN no and Share Application Form to prove that the shares were allotted to the applicants. The assessee has also furnished its bank statement to show that the money was received through banking channels and there […]
ITO Vs Sudarshan R. Kharbanda (ITAT Mumbai) If the aforementioned judicial pronouncements and the facts available on record are kept in juxtaposition and analyzed with the assembling of parts done by the assessee, we find that the resultant end product is commercially known differently in the trading world, therefore, certainly it can be said that […]
Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd Vs JCIT (ITAT Mumbai) So far as the penalty proceedings are concerned, the assessee has made out a prima facie case in favour of the assessee proving that the outcome of the appeal before ITAT will directly impact the proceedings which are hurriedly being finalized by the authorities below, which may […]
Aditya Birla Power Company Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) The undisputed position that emerges out of the above discussion is that the assessee undertook a project and incurred certain expenditure which was reimbursable to him along with development fees upon financial closure of the project. However, the project was ultimately aborted by the assessee and […]
Deepak B. Shah Vs ACIT Mumbai (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case the Income Tax Department sought to tax fund lying in a Swiss bank account as “Unaccounted Income” in the hands of two residents of Mumbai. The appellants maintained account in Swiss Bank stated that they had no contribution in the said account as […]
At the same time, we cannot also ignore the fact that it was for the Revenue to have allowed smooth switchover from manual to e-filing system of filing TDS returns. The onus and burden was on revenue to provide necessary infrastructure so that tax-payer did not face any inconvenience in filing e-TDS returns.
Sushmita Sen recent appeal: Where the assessee made certain claim which had not been accepted by the Revenue, penalty under section 271(1)(c) thereon deleted
Lakshman M. Charanjiva Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Indexation benefit against the cost of acquisition shall be available to the assessee on the basis of index of the year in which the payments were actually made by the assessee. The payment made up-to the date of agreement i.e. 18/10/2007 shall be indexed by applying the index […]
While computing capital gains arising on transfer of a capital asset acquired by assessee under a gift or will, indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with reference to year in which previous owner first held asset and not with reference to the year in which the assessee became owner of asset.
Mukand Sumi Metal Processing Limited Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Provisions of section 56(2)(viib) invoked in the notice u/s. 263 by the ld. CIT is not applicable to the assessee company. As the assessee company was falling under section 2(18) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being a company in which public are substantially interested. This […]
