ITAT Mumbai held In the case of The ACIT vs. Institute of Chemical Technology University of Mumbai that the consultancy work done by the assessee – University through its professors, in which part income is held by university and the rest lying with respective professors, is not in any way relatable to the aims and object for which the assessee was established.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Tata Consultancy Services that section 80HHC does not place any restriction to shift the claim of deduction or exemption under any other provision in respect of profits for which no deduction has been claimed and allowed in the previous year.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of M/s Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT that a careful perusal of provisions of sec. 132(4) as well sec. 292C would show that the said provisions state that the statement taken u/s 132(4) “may be used in evidence in any proceeding under the Act”.
ITAT Mumbai held in the case of DCIT v. Rama Capital and Financial Services Ltd. that without any substantive ground reopening cannot be done on the basis of change of opinion. It Further held that without any supporting material, the A.O. cannot substitute market value.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of DCIT v. The Indian Hotels Co. Pvt. Ltd. that principle of consistency should be followed when there were similar issues and the similar principal was laid down in the case of Assessee’s Sister Concern.
Assessee was not aware of this fact that the sale proceeds arised out of sale of an agricultural land is exempt from tax u/s 10 of the Act hence the assessee inadvertently could not adduce the said fact before the Assessing Officer as well as while filing the return of income.
Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is following conservative method of accounting for valuation of closing stock. The films purchased are shown at cost if the same are sold in the year, the profit or loss on the same is recorded.
The Brief facts of the case are that assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and dealing in flexible packaging material. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) read with section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act,1961
Rashmikant Baxi (HUF) Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Reference to DVO can be made in two situations; first, the value is adopted based on report of registered valuer and second, in any other case. In assessee’s case, fair market value adopted as on 01.04.1981 is based on valuation report of registered Valuer.
The claim of depreciation made by the assessee in the return of income included depreciation of wind mill @ 80% and additional depreciation @ 20% as per Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee’s claim of additional depreciation was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that additional depreciation
