The common issue in these appeals is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in making addition on account of alleged notional annual letting value of unsold flats held as stock in trade.
Assessee company further contended to treat the receipts of income from the let out of Terrace Antenna and Hall as Business Income and allow the expenditure against the same. The Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee and taxed the income received from terrace antenna and hall booking under the head Income from Other Sources.
ITO Vs Pritendra C. Jhaveri (ITAT Mumbai) Since the expression ‘held by the assessee’ is not defined under section 48, the same has to be understood as defined under Explanation 1(i)(b) to section 2(42A) which provides that in determining the period for which an asset is held by assessee under a gift or will the […]
Heddle Knowledge (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITAT Mumbai) The fact that the amended Sec. 140A(3) w.e.f. 01.04.1989 does not envisage any penalty for non-payment of self-assessment tax, the Assessing Officer was not justified in levying the impugned penalty by making recourse to Sec. 221(1) of the Act. Before parting, we may again emphasize […]
ITAT Mumbai in case of ACIT v/s M/s WTI Advanced technology held that tax is to deducted u/s 194C for outsourcing of any service which do not require skilled staff.
The Mumbai bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently ruled that technical services would not include services provided by the machines for the purpose of Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ).
Upon conjoint reading of Trust Deed and SEBI directions as above, we conclude that the said expenditure was incurred by the assessee to safeguard / protect its business interest and therefore, allowable to the assessee in terms of Section 37.
Future Corporate Resources Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee argued that it had earned meager dividend income of Rs. 24,138 as against which, the assessing officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 3,36,28,000 which is more than the exempt income. The assessee further argued that dis-allowance under section 14A cannot exceed amount of exempt […]
Non service of noticed is not a ground to raise the addition of bogus purchase to the income of the assessee in view of the law settled in CIT Vs. M/s. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P. Ltd. 2016 taxman.com 171 (Bombay High Court).
As Prior to assessment year 2015-16 no restriction was placed by the legislature in respect of investments in the residential houses that an assessee could make for claiming deduction under section 54 of the Act. We thus are of the view that the claim of deduction raised by the assessee under section 54 in respect of investment made towards purchase of residential house at Mumbai and Pune was well in order.
