Where assessee having received share capital furnished evidences, i.e. addresses, PAN No., copies of returns and bank statements of subscribers, etc., AO was not justified in treating share application money as unexplained without rebutting such evidences.
Commission earned by non-resident for services rendered abroad could not be construed as incomes accrued or arisen in India and accordingly disallowance made by AO by invoking section 40(a)(i) was set aside.
Assessee held own funds of Rs. 23,580 lakhs, whereas investment in subsidiaries stood at Rs. 1,576 lakhs. Presumption in such case would be that assessee had used only its own funds for making investments. Further, there was commercial expediency in making said investments, hence no disallowance was called for.
These are the appeals filed by assessee against the order of CIT(A)-12, Mumbai dated 30/05/2014 for A.Y. 2008-09 and A.Y. 2009-10 in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter the Act). In the A.Y. 2010-11, Revenue is in appeal before us with respect to disallowance of similar expenses.
In a recent decision made by ITAT, Mumbai in case of Neha Saraf vs. ACIT it has been decided that where an employee receives Interest Free loan from the employer it shall be taxable in the hands of the employee as salary as per the provisions of the section.
Challenging the order dated 03/06/2014 of the CIT(A)-17,Mumbai,the Assessee has filed present appeal.Assessee-company,engaged in the business of manufacturing of textiles,filed its return of income on 30/09/2011 declaring total income at NIL.The Assessing Officer (AO) completed assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act,on 03/01/2014,determining total income at Rs.71. 52 lakhs.
Where due to pending disputes with debtors, sales commission could not be paid to agents for longer period, taxation of such liability payable to agents under section 41(1) was not justified.
As AO failed to arrive at satisfaction as to non-correctness of assessee’s claim as regards no expenditure against exempt income, invocation of rule 8D was in contravention of section 14A(2) and, therefore, disallowance was deleted.
These are the appeals filed by assessee against the order of CIT(A)-16, Mumbai dated 14/08/2015 for A.Y.1997-98 and 2003-04, in the matter of imposition of penalty u/s.271 (1 )(c) of the IT Act.
No penalty under Sec. 27(1)(c) of the Act could have been imposed on the assessee in respect of the addition of an amount of Rs. 47,66,952/- made by the A.O towards notional income of the villa owned by the assessee at Dubai.
