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 […]
Once there was compliance to TDS provisions, even if there was short deduction of TDS or TDS had been deducted under different sections, there was no scope for AO to disallow expenditure under section 40(a)(ia) as provisions under section 40(a)(ia) is applicable only when there is no TDS deduction.
Deegee Software (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) As long as the ‘annual value’ of a property can be determined under 23, there would be no embargo, as regards claim of ‘interest on borrowed capital’ under section 24(b). Though a restriction as regards the quantum of deduction, is provided in the first proviso of section […]
When dumb documents like loose sheets of papers are recovered and revenue wants to make use of it, onus rests on the Revenue to collect cogent evidence to corroborate the noting therein. As AO failed to do so, addition made under section 153C was deleted.
The only change in facts is that there are divergent statements by way of affidavits from two Chartered Accountants, one in favour of the assessee and one is against the assessee. Except this the assessee has not brought out any records to prove its bonafide attempts made in filing appeal against the order passed by the AO.
Nivea India Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) TPO had not brought on record the fact that AMP expenses incurred by assessee were not for its own business. The sole basis on which adjustment, under the head AMP expenditure, was made was that expenditure incurred by assessee was significantly higher than that of its comparable […]
Assessing donation write-off & fixed asset depreciation as income application. AO directed for verification. ITAT Mumbai
Where rental income was received by assessee as owner of flat same was to be assessed under head income from house property and not as business income, as flat was not stock-in-trade in assessee-builder’s case.
Smt. Ranjana R. Deshmukh Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Admittedly, though the assessee had entered into an agreement to purchase the new property viz. A-801, Lodha Luxuria on 29.01.2009, but then the possession of the same was delivered to her only as on 18.05.2012. We are persuaded to subscribe to the claim of the ld. A.R […]
Where claim of deduction had came up with a complete disclosure of all the facts by way of a note to the Computation of Income (COI) filed with assessee’s Return of Income (ROI) for the year under consideration, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) was called for :Novartis India case
