M/s. Kshitij Interiors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) From the record we found that commission was paid to Mr. Bhawarlal Sharma, whole time Director of the Company, for the services rendered by him to the Company. The Director has rendered technical services to the assessee company. The commission so paid is for the services […]
The assessee further contended that additions cannot be made towards purchases merely on the basis of third party information ignoring the evidences filed to justify purchases. The assessee further contended before the lower authorities that the assessing officer neither pointed out any error or discrepancy in the books of account nor did make out any case of sales made outside the books of account.
Assessee has invested more than the sale proceeds of the industrial gala for purchase of two flats. Respectfully following the decision of Karnataka High Court,we do not find any merit for decline of assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.54 for investment in two flats out of sale proceeds of long term capital gains within the stipulated period provided in the Act.
Merely on the reasoning that liability in respect of some of the sundry creditors have remained outstanding for about three years the assessing officer has concluded that they have to be treated as income of the assessee in the impugned assessment year as they have ceased to exist as per section 41(1) of the Act.
Mrs. Nawaz Singhania Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Instruction 1916 issued by the Board with regard to seizure of jewellery has inherent foundation of undisclosed portion of jewellery that may be identified in the search. The Instruction No. 1916, therefore is describing the criteria for decision making for jewellery to be undisclosed. Accordingly, any portion of […]
Mrs. Shardaben Bhavani Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Dis allowance of the claim of interest on housing loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- raised by the assessee u/s 24(b) in her return of income, but disallowed by the A.O and thereafter sustained by the CIT(A). We are of the considered view that as observed by us herein above, […]
DCIT Vs. M/s. Cox & Kings (I) Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Assessee has a foreign exchange division approved by the RBI and is authorized to buy foreign exchange and travelers cheques from RMCs and others and sell them to persons in need of them. RMCs are also authorized by RBI to buy foreign currency from non […]
Learned Counsel submitted that assessee is not required to deduct tax at source on estimation of expenses i.e. for the provision made for expenses, tax deduction is not required. For this proposition, learned Counsel placed reliance upon case law from Aditya Birla NUVO Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 8427 (Mum.) of 2010, date 17-9-2014].
On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is an agent of the Government of Maharashtra, without appreciating the facts that there is no evidence/documents substantiating that the Principal-Agent-Relationship exists between the assessee and the government of Maharashtra.
Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 139(1) Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 80 Return of income–Requirement to file return electronically–Return filed manually–Claim for set-off and carry forward of losses Conclusion: Simply because the assessee could not file the return electronically within the provisions of section 139(1), the benefit of set-off and carry forward of losses could not be denied for the reason that the assessee did file return of income manually within the due date specified under section 139(1).
