The ITAT Mumbai in the case of M/s Steller Developers P. Ltd. held that if the letting out of property is with intention to commercially exploit and it is the main object of assessee company then income from such leasing/letting is assessable under business head and not as house property.
ITAT Mumbai has held in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Venus Jewel that Loss on account of forward contract entered into by the assessee to hedge against the loss arising on account of fluctuations in foreign exchange is an allowable deduction.
The ITAT Mumbai disposing off miscellaneous application of ICAI held that the observations made by ITAT were not offensive, thus, cannot be deleted in totality. The same has been misunderstood by ICAI and ,therefore, modified suitably to ensure that the clear message that there is a need of improvement in the overall design of CA course
In the case of Venture Pvt.Ltd vs. DCIT, ITAT Mumbai has held that (1) the Net profit shown in the Profit and loss account should be adjusted with the items given in Notes to accounts, meaning thereby,
ITAT Mumbai has held in the case of Hasmukh N. Gala vs. ITO that Giving advance to builder constitutes ‘purchase’ of new house even if construction is not completed and title to the property has not passed to the assessee within the prescribed period.
In the case of Shri Hasmukh N. Gala vs. ITO, ITAT has held that if assessee has invested substantial amount in new property, also received letter of allotment for new property then AO can’t denied exemption available u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act 1961.
DCIT vs. M/s Garware Polyester Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) The Assessing Officer does not have the power to tinker with such accounts prepared as per Schedule VI and certified by the Auditors except for the adjustments permissible by Explanation to Sec 115JB to arrive at book profits
ITAT Mumbai held in case of ACIT vs. Suryashankar Properties Limited that Intention of letting out the property is to be seen for invoking clause (c) of section 23(1) for computing the annual letting value of the property and it is irrelevant whether the property is/was let out.
The first arguments which has been considered was regarding the source of advances in the 100% subsidiary comapy, which the assessee company argued to be out of reservs and suplus, which could not be contradicted by the Revenue.
TechNVision Ventures Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, where claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not, attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
