AO has not made any enquiry with respect to the claim of deduction of the assessee company with respect to provisions for warranty charges, excise duty, sales tax and liquidity damages amounting to Rs.17.72 crores.
It is a fact that the movement of prices of commodities cannot be predicted by anyone with accuracy and hence it is inconceivable or unlikely that the assessee could have made profits consistently, even if it is assumed for a moment that the assessee had actually carried out the transactions for its own benefit.
The assessee may not have been successful in getting customers or earning the business income, but if the assessee has done requisite preparations and if the assessee can be said to be in a position to cater to its customers
It is open to a company to buy back its own shares by following the procedure prescribed under section 77A/Section 68 or by following the procedure prescribed under section 391 read with Sections 100 to 104 of the 1956, Act.
ITAT Mumbai held in the case of Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Private Limited vs. ACIT that application for further stay is in favour of assessee. The reasons are that firstly, there is no change in the facts and circumstances since the last stay was extended by the Tribunal, and secondly, the major demand which has been raised prima facie appears to be covered by the decision of the Tribunal
As per the nature of business of the assessee, certain procedural non-compliance are not unusual, for which assessee is required to pay some fines or penalties. In our considered view, these routine fines or penalties are compensatory in nature; these are not punitive.
ITAT Mumbai held in the case of M/s. Multi Act Realty Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO that setting up of business’ and ‘commencement of business’ may be too different and independent events. For the purpose of deductibility of the business expenses, the reference point would be initial setting up of the business.
In the present case, the assessee had filed an application with National Housing Bank on 23.12.2004 and submitted along with this application Cheque No.669766 dated 23.12.2004. This fact has not been disputed by the Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue.
The brokerage paid to the third party has nothing to do with the rental income paid by the tenant for enjoying the property to the owner therefore brokerage cannot be said to be a charge that has been created in the property for enjoying the rights and at best it is only an application of income received/receivable from rent
ITAT Mumbai held in the case DCIT vs. M/s. ACC Ltd. held that AO is duty bound to follow instruction of The CIT (A) being very senior officer of the Department who also also performs quasi judicial functions. The AO has all the rights to challenge the order of the CIT (A) before the appropriate judicial forum, but he is not authorized to disobey the directions given by the CIT (A).
