The ld. Counsel for the assessee for the year AY 2007-08 regarding the imposition of penalty contended that the Assessee were not aware of the provisions of Law in which the receipt of loan through cheque or bank draft was required.
ITAT Mumbai has in the case of M/s Shoreline Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v CIT held that CIT was justified in invocation of Section 263 when AO has not made any inquiry with regard to the expenses claimed in respect of accommodation bill obtained by assessee that reduced profit of assessee by 100% instead of 15% considered by AO.
The Hon’ble Tribunal observed that the basis for making the addition of Rs. 19.98 crores is the loose paper which doesn’t make any sense. Merely by making additions of all the figures mentioned in the loose paper would not justify the addition of Rs. 19.98 crores.
115JB lays down that every assessee for the purpose of this section shall prepare its Profit & loss account for the relevant previous year in accordance with the provisions of part II & III of Schedule 6 of the Companies Act, 1956.
The transaction of allowing credit period to the AE on realization of sale proceeds is not an independent transaction and has to be considered along with the main international transaction of sale of goods.
In the case of Bhuvan Leasing and Infrastructures Vs ITO, ITAT Mumbai has held that where it is the intention of the assessee to lease out various premises and then sublet the same on leave and licence basis to different parties
The tribunal in the verdict of Shailendra H. Bhatia vs. ITO concluded that Transfer of possession with the ownership rights confer beneficial ownership which is good enough to hold the asset as capital asset
In the present case HC held that standby maintenance charges are not technical services within the meaning of section 9(1)(vii). On the issue of Restoration Activities High court held that amount received from restoration activities cannot be termed as business income as the large portion of the cable Network was outside the Jurisdiction of Territorial waters of India.
In the present facts of the Case, the Hon’ble tribunal held that businessman is the best Judge to find out what is the best for his business and to whom he should employ as the Commercial Expediency is only known to him.
Tribunal examined that whether addition can be made on account of net increase in the assessee’s capital during the year on account of write back as well as write off of some old credits and debits appearing in her accounts.
