A search and seizure action was carried out at the residence of Devdas A.Alva on 13.9. 2001.During the action,a loose paper file marked A-1was seized.Pages No 1-17 contained a copy of the catering contract entered into by Apporva caterers and Ooters Club and Page No. 26 to 28 were the bills
The ITAT Delhi in the case of ITO vs. Shree Rajeev Goenka that assessee cannot be said to make full and correct disclosure of all the facts if the return of income due date which he mentioned in return filed is different from the due date he claimed during reassessment proceedings.
Correctness of law laid down by Bombay High Court in Ace Builder 281 ITR 210 that deduction u/s 54EC is available to short-term capital gains computed u/s 50 doubted by ITAT Mumbai in the case of ITO Vs Legal Heir of Shri Durgaprasad Agnihotri although it has followed the Judgment of Bombay High Court as required to maintain judicial discipline.
ITAT Mumbai held in ITO Vs Legal Heir of Shri Durgaprasad Agnihotri that to respect the decision given by jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court in CIT vs. Ace Builders (P.) Ltd. [2006] 281 ITR 210 (Bom) it was upholding the decision given by CIT(A) that the exemption u/s 54EC
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of M/s. National Pharmaceuticals vs. ITO that there is no straight jacket formula can be applied to check sufficient reasons for late filing of appeal. It will depend on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.
ITAT Mumbai held In the case of The ACIT vs. M/s Sandeep Shrivastava that AO is not authorized to make any addition merely on account of presumption. In this case because the assessee is Share holder and Director of the company, which sold the property
Mr.Vinod D Motiwala Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- AO has considered the fact that the assessee did not carry on any agricultural activity. In our view, the absence of agricultural activity cannot be considered to be the sole ground to determine the intention of the assessee.
HDFC Bank Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)- Also the judgment of Biocon Ltd vs. Dy. CIT [2013] 25 ITR (Trib) 602 (Bang) (SB) in which it was held that discount on the issue of shares to employee under the ESOP is an allowed expenditure u/s 37 is binding on us.
Mumbai ITAT held In the case of Shri Hafeez S Contractor vs. ACIT that penalty u/s 271(1) (c) cannot be imposed in those cases where no specific charges are mentioned in penalty notice. In the given case the AO has not specified that as to which limb the notice was issued
Mumbai ITAT held In the case of Shri Uday C Tamhankar that the submission of assessee that the assessment years up to 2006-07 falls in the category of concluded assessments, i.e., assessments of those years were not pending on the date of initiation of search is a valid submission.
