M/s NRB Bearing Ltd vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai) Municipal rateable value cannot be rejected straightway.To reject the same, there must be reliable material on record.The market rate in the locality is an approved method for determining the fair rental value but it is only when the AO is convinced that the case before him is suspicious.
In the Case of Income Tax Officer (TDS) Vs. M/s Progressive Civil Engineers Private Limited, ITAT Mumbai held that Lease Premium payment made to CIDCO is to acquire capital asset being long term holding rights along with right to construct and therefore it is capital expenditure in nature.
In the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. -Vs- The Addl. Commissioner of Income tax, there were several grounds on which the appeal was made, both by the revenue as well as the assessee. The major ground being of transfer pricing has been discussed hereunder.
lndo Stosec (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Assessee has converted the stock in trade into investments only in the current year and immediately sold the shares after such conversion. Accordingly, the Ld D.R submitted that the assessee has entertained the idea of conversion, only to avail the exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act and also to avail concessional rate of tax in respect of short term capital gains.
ACIT vs. M/s. Superior Financial Consultancy Services (ITAT Mumbai)- Ld.CIT(A), for the purpose of deciding the case has elaborately discussed three main issues, namely (i) whether the assessee can legally convert its stock-in trade into investments
The ITAT Mumbai in the case of M/s Goldfilled Mercantile Company vs. DCIT held that when the assessee shown lesser capital gain in its return of income under a bonafide belief of a deduction from it but paid due taxes then the assessee cannot be penalized u/s 271(1)(c) as there was no intention
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of Emblem Fashion Wear Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO that the assessee did not obtain approval, either pre or post facto, from the competent authority, as required by law. Also the assessee did not apply for any extension of time.
ITAT Mumbai held in the case of Hiralal Chunilal Jain vs. ITO that addition for alleged Bogus Purchase not sustainable as AO had made the addition solely on the basis of information received from the Sales tax department without making any independent inquiry or following the principles of natural justice before making the addition.
CIT Vs Late Gopal V. Gorwani (ITAT Mumbai) The Assessing Officer, on perusing the aforesaid terms of the agreement was of the view that flats to be constructed by the vendee on behalf of the co–owners is the non–monetary consideration received by them on account of sale of the property.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of ICICI Ltd. vs. ACIT that in assessee’s own case for the AY 1995-96, the ITAT referred the case of S.B.I. Home Finance Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 6 in which the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held that the leased transactions were genuine.
