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).
In the cited case, ITAT inter-alia held that the claim has been denied merely because the AO has treated the transaction as speculative loss. This cannot be any reason for declining the claim of rebate u/s. 88E of the Act as the claim is allowable from the business income be it speculative or not.
In this case ITAT examined the issue whether fee paid to golf club on behalf of director to develop links with other corporates leaders is an allowable business expenditure. On the basis of other judicial pronouncement ITAT decided this question in favour of assessee.
The Assessee sold immovable property for a sale consideration of Rs.13,70,000/-. The stamp duty valuation price was Rs.17,90,085/-. Accordingly AO invoking the provision of section 50C made addition on account of short-term capital gain.
In the instant case, the assessee has sold 71233 shares for Rs.3.33 crore under the buy-back scheme. This sale consideration comprises Rs.1.06 crore as interest. The assessee calculated the capital gain considering the total receipt of Rs.3.33 crore as value of sale consideration while the A.O. taxed Rs.1.06 crore as income from other sources which was confirmed by the Tribunal.
In the case of Akansha Ranju Pilani vs. Income Tax officer, (ITAT Mumbai) has held that Only the expenditure/outgoings specified under the relevant head of income and, further, subject to the conditions specified in respect thereof, stand to be allowed in computing the income under that head of income.
ITAT Mumbai has held in the case of ACIT vs. Tristar Jewellery Exports Pvt. Ltd. That Reliance on statement of supplier who confesses to providing accommodation entries without giving assessee right of cross-examination violates principles of natural justice.
ITAT Mumbai has held in the case of Lionbridge Technologies Private Limited vs ITO (International Taxation) (TDS) that There is no liability to deduct tax at source on reimbursement of cost. Consequently for not deducting tax at source, the assessee cannot be treated as assessee in default under sections 201/ 201(1A).
In the case of Tecnimont ICB House vs. DCIT, ITAT has held that Recovery of expenses beyond the normal period was in the nature of deemed loan in the hands of AEs and require transfer pricing adjustment.
ITAT Mumbai In the case of Color Craft v ITO held that the notice sent through the ‘speed post’ is totally valid in the eyes of law as ‘registered post’. The Hon’ble Tribunal while substantiating their decision relied on section 27 of General Clauses Act which mentions about ‘service by post’
