These are bunch of seven appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue for assessment year 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 . First we shall take up cross appeals field by the assessee as well as the Revenue in ITA 4284/Mum/2014 and 1807/Mum/2011 for assessment year ( AY ) 2006-07 respectively.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal recently ruled that the service tax collection shall be deducted from gross Receipts while computing the profit for the purpose of Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The primary condition of reasonable belief having nexus with the material on record is still operative. However, we are of the view, that mere fresh application of mind to the same set of facts or mere change of opinion does not confer jurisdiction to the assessing officer even under the post-1989 section 147 of the Act.
ITAT Held that (i) That the assessee has generated steam power from bio-gas, (ii) Generation of cooling power from cooling towers and (ii) Cooling Power from Ammonia Absorption Refrigeration Plant ans such activities are eligible for Deduction under Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The point worth noting here is that this fact was stated by the assessee in his statement also at the time of search. Learned assessing officer has chosen to rely only upon that part of statement which suited him and ignored the remaining one.
We are of the view that in the absence of any direct nexus between expenditure claim to the exempt income, the assessing officer cannot invoke the provisions of section 14A row with rule 8D(2) to disallow expenditure.
Assessing Officer expected the assessee to disclose, and which were necessary for his assessment but not disclosed. Therefore, factually speaking, we find enough weight in the plea canvassed that there has been no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the material facts as required by the proviso to Sec. 147 of the Act and thus, in our view, the initiation of proceedings by issuance of notice u/s 147/148 of the Act was vitiated.
Mr. Hasmukh I. Gandhi Vs. Dy. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) In this case Information was received by CBDT from German Authorities about bank account held by a trust named as Manichi Trust where economically beneficial ownership of the assets is of the appellant and his family members. Specific details such as date of birth, residential address, […]
Amount received by assessee form a closely held company in the guise of an agreement having no existence in the eyes of law, was to be assessed as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) in assessee’s hands on account of his substantial shareholding.
Where assessee developed various educational software/special courses for imparting education, then assessee was correct in claiming depreciation at 60 per cent treating same as software based on the facts that these were specially designed computer softwares
