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.
New Consolidated Construction Company Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee conceded that to buy peace of mind he was ready to accept the percentage as consistently applied by the Tribunal in other cases. When a query was put to the revenue he also fairly agreed for a reasonable percentage. ITAT held that Profit rate […]
Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim of Depreciation amounting to Rs. 91,87,713/- on the alleged plea that the Film Projector is to be depreciated @ 15% instead of 60%,
D.C.I.T Vs. M/s. Pennzoil Quaker State India Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) On a perusal of the notice issued u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiation of proceedings we find that the Assessing Officer did not strike off and specify the charge/limb for which he is proposing to initiate penalty proceedings. However, in the Assessment Order, Assessing […]
Manek Lodge Properties Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case the assessee is nothing but association of co-owners of certain properties whose only objective is to derive income from letting out of property and nothing more. The bench also held that if the contention of Assessee is to be accepted, […]
Assessee was engaged in the business of investment in shares and securities, financing and granting loans and advances against shares. The assessee earned exempt dividend income and made suo moto dis allowance against the same under section 14A.
ITAT Mumbai held in the case of Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT that Making addition on estimate basis by rejecting the books of account in the absence of any adverse material brought on record cannot stand.
To sum up, even under the amended law, in all cases, there must exist reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and a mere change of opinion on the same facts and law does not justify a reassessment. For a reassessment proceeding initiated after four years, it must further be established that the escapement was by reason of failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.
Where AO failed to record his satisfaction in the assessment order as to under which limb, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was initiated against assessee, being essential condition was not fulfilled, penalty was liable to be deleted.
Krishna N Bhojwani, Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) While calculating annual value of the let out property, maintenance charges paid to the society by the assessee is admissible deduction from the annual let out value under section 23(1)(b). Hence, disallowance made by AO was not justified. FULL TEXT OF ITAT ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS: The captioned […]
