ITO Vs M/s. Sugarchem (ITAT Mumbai) The AO in the course of assessment proceedings requested the assessee to furnish the reasons why no TDS was deducted in respect of transportation charges. The assessee furnished PAN details of the transporters to the tune of 67,24,412/- out of 80,23,971/- in respect of nine transporters referred to in […]
DCIT Vs M/s. Karthik Construction Co. (ITAT Mumbai) As could be seen, the Assessing Officer raised suspicion on the loan repayment by doubting the genuineness of the unsecured loan availed by the assessee against which such loan repayment was made. However, as per the facts on record, unsecured loans which were repaid by the assessee […]
We find that DJ had admitted of issuing bogus bills.But, nowhere he had admitted that he had issued accommodation bills to the assessee. In our opinion, there is subtle but very important difference in issuing bogus bills and issuing accommodation bills to a particular party
Challenging the order dated 28/01/2016 of CIT(A)-8,Mumbai,the Assessing Officer (AO) has filed the present appeal. The assessee has raised a Cross Objection for the same.Assessee – company engaged in providing cellular mobile services and trades in accessories filed its return of income at Rs.Nil after set off of brought forward business loss.
This appeal by assessee under section 253 of Income-tax Act is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals)-35 Mumbai dated 4th September 2012, which in turn arises from assessment order passed under section 143(3) on 26 December 2008 for assessment year 2006-07. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal
It is settled law that when parties entered into family arrangement, validity of the family arrangement is not to be judged with reference to whether the parties should raised dispute or rights or claimed rights or a certain properties had in law any such right or not.
In both the appeals, the controversy relates to the nature and treatment of amounts received by the assesses from warehousing activity. As per the assesses the receipts from the warehousing activities are liable to be treated as business income whereas as per the Assessing Officer the same are liable to be treated as income from house property.
Conclusion: Notional interest on delay in realization of trade debt could not be charged from AE as there was uniformity in the act of the assessee in not charging interest from both AE and Non-AE debtors for delayed realization of export proceeds.
Since assessee had made purchase from the grey market which gives the assessee savings on account of non-payment of tax and others at the expense of the exchequer, and when sales were also not doubted, in such situation, in the facts and circumstances of the case, 12.5% dis allowance out of the bogus purchases meets the end of justice.
Section 56 allows the assessees to adopt one of the methods of their choice. But,the AO held that the assessee should have adopted only one method for determining the value of the shares.In our opinion,it was beyond the jurisdiction of the AO to insist upon a particular system, especially the Act allows to choose one of the two methods.
