The objection of the revenue that the assessee intentionally waited for mechanical lapse of 36 months and deliberately put the date on agreement as 18-11-2009 to avoid the payment of tax is not tenable.
Devaram C. Bhavani Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We have given a thoughtful consideration to the notings in the impounded document, viz. Annexure A-2– Page 37 & Page 105 and are unable to persuade ourselves to be in agreement with the view taken by the lower authorities. We find that as against the working of the amount […]
ITO Vs. M/s. Arandi Investments Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Assessing Officer treated loss in future and options (F&O) transactions as speculation loss and disallowed the same. We find that on this issue, the A.O. has referred to Honorable Delhi High Court decisions on identical issue. The Honorable Delhi High Court in the case of CIT […]
Balaji Motion Pictures Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee has given an explanation that keeping in view smallness of the amount being addition of Rs. 2,16,441/- and also keeping in view that the assessee had claimed a loss of more than of Rs. 9 crores in the return of income filed with the Revenue […]
AO issued notice under section 148 in the name of firm which had been converted into a private limited company. Assessee’s case was that re-assessment order passed by AO under section 143(3) read with section 147 was null and void. Held: Undisputedly, reassessment proceedings were initiated by AO on a non-existent firm and hence, reassessment order was null and void.
Reference to Special Bench would continue to be moved by the parties upon every subsequent non-jurisdictional High Court decision, thus, leading to a number of cases being referred to constitute Special Bench. However, correct decision is to follow the judicial hierarchy and maintain judicial discipline.
When there is direct sale transaction between two principals and there is no principal agent relationship, provisions of section 194H are not applicable
FCCB is akin to borrowings made by issuing debentures and both of them are different types of debt instruments only. Accordingly it was held in the case of Prime Focus Ltd. (supra), that the expenses incurred in connection with FCCB are revenue in nature.
Where search was conducted and addition was made by AO in respect of completed assessment on the basis of the entries found recorded in regular books of account of the assessee and no material evidence was unearthed during search, AO was not justified since completed assessment could not be disturbed in absence of contrary material found during search.
Total dues payable by the Bank consisted of principal component and interest component. The principal Component being a loan in respect of which no deduction, benefit or loss was either claimed or allowed, was transferred to Capital Reserve Account and interest component was duly credited to the Profit and Loss Account and also offered to tax as income within the meaning of section 41(1) of the Act. The loan received is a capital receipt and it does not lose its capital nature even when it is renounced or waived by the lender.
