This appeal by the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 03-09-2011 passed against the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 21-12-2010 and is filed on the following grounds
ACIT v. Shrey Sharma Guleri (ITAT Mumbai) The argument of the learned D.R. is that the basement in the house cannot be termed as a residential house within the provisions of section 54 of the Act. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee defended the conclusion drawn in the impugned order. It was pleaded that basement is part and parcel of the residential unit, therefore, it cannot be termed as a separate unit.
Excess expenditure in earlier years can be adjusted against income of subsequent years and such adjustment would be application of income for subsequent years and therefore, AO was directed to allow the claim of assessee.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be levied where AO was not sure about the charge on which penalty was to be levied since he had initiated penalty proceedings for both the charges, i.e., furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as well as concealment of particulars of income, and also levied the penalty on both the charges vide his penalty order.
If no tax is deductible under section 195(1), section 40(a)(i) of the IT Act will not come in the way of the appellant claiming such deduction from its income: Barclays Bank Plc case
Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited Vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) Taxes borne by the assessee on non-monetary perquisites provided to employees forms part of Employee Benefit cost and akin to Fringe Benefit Tax since they are certainly not below the line items since the same are expressively disallowed u/s 40(a)(v) and the same do not constitute […]
Though manufacturers were obliged to manufacture products as per specifications and standards provided by the assessee however, contractual obligations were entered into on principal-to-principal basis and related agreements were purchase and sale contracts simpliciter, which did not require any deduction of tax under section 194C.
The grounds of appeal in ITA No. 1295/Mum/2012 for AY 2000-01 & ITA No. 1296/Mum/2012 for AY 2001-02 are common. In both these appeals the assessee has taken as many as eight grounds of appeal
No dis allowance u/s 14A is called for in a case where the shares are held as stock-in-trade as held in India Advantage Securities Ltd. (supra), CCI Ltd. v. JCIT (2012) 20 taxmann.com 196 (Karn.), PCIT v. State Bank of Patiala (2017) 78 taxmann.com 3 (P& H) and CIT v. G.K.K. Capital Markets (P.) Ltd. (2017) 78 taxmann.com 341 (Cal.).
Word own in s. 54F would include only the case where a residential house is fully and wholly owned by assessee and consequently would not include a residential house owned by more than one person.
