In the instant case, the assessee has purchased the new residential house at Pune in July 2008 in dilapidated condition and immediately there-after undertaken extensive civil, plumbing, electrical & painting works to make it habitable
The ITAT bench of Mumbai in the above cited case law held that any contingent impact on profit/loss would not take the transaction to fall within the purview of international transaction. In the present case
The ITAT bench of Mumbai in the above cited case held that when the assessee company in its continuing and existing business of chartered hiring of rigs imported new rigs to be moved to and installed at the site of the clients desirous of taking the same on hire for oil drilling, all the mobilization expenses which is in connection with these new rigs till these new rigs mobilization is completed and these rigs are installed at clients site and start commencing drilling of oil for the client is a revenue expenditure and not a capital expenditure.
In the present case also, assessee has engaged a chartered accountant to guide her in complying to statutory requirements. Therefore, when the C.A. issued a certificate opining that there is no requirement for deduction of tax at source, assessee under a bonafide belief that withholding of tax is not required did not deduct tax at source on the remittances made.
In the present case by virtue of independent documents as referred in paper book the assessee has proved the genuineness of the share transaction and there was no justification to disallow the claim of the assessee in respect of long term capital gain merely on the basis of information received from DDIT which is based on admission of Shri Mukesh Chokshi.
Legal position as propounded by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Trishul Investments Ltd (supra) supports the plea of the assessee that interest paid for acquisition of the shares would partake the character of cost of shares and, therefore, assessee had rightly capitalized the interest along with the cost of acquisition for the purpose of computing capital gains.
Assessee could collect various evidences only after passing of the assessment order. According to the assessee, these additional evidences are vital documents which are required to be considered in order to adjudicate the issue in a judicious manner.
The assessee submitted that at that time she was having pregnancy of 5 months and due to immense work pressure in the office she could not devote time to see the content of ITR filed by the said ‘Taxspanner’ as she did not understand the form also, hence she just signed the ITR-V and sent it to the Bangalore CPC of Income Tax Department.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of M/s. Rachana Finance & Investments Pvt. Ltd. & M/s. Repute Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT that in the present case, the order of AO may be brief but that by itself is not a sufficient reason to hold the order of assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
ITAT Mumbai held in the case of Hassan Ali Khan vs. DCIT that the assessee claiming that he has no bank account or based on transfer instructions, no transfer of funds had, however, been effected, would be of little moment in-as-much as the addition is toward unexplained money or bank deposit.
