ITAT Mumbai imposes Rs. 10,000 cost on Hunt International Investments LLC for non-response to notices under section 142(1). Details on the case inside.
ITAT Mumbai sets aside CIT(A) order in Vimal Kishor Shah vs ITO case, ruling purchases reflected in books can’t be treated as unexplained investment.
ITAT Mumbai’s order on Ayyappa Seva Samgham Bombay Vs CIT(A). Insight into the ruling on Corpus Donations, depreciation claims, & Section 11 of the Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that since service charges collected from the tenant was accepted as ‘income from business, any expenses incurred thereof is allowable as business expense.
ITAT Mumbai held that provision of Sec. 69A of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied in respect of cash deposited which have been duly recorded in the books of account and had already been declared income in the return of income filed by the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per section 92CA of the Income Tax Act, TPO can pass the order at any time before 60 days prior to the date on which period of limitation referred u/s 153 expires. TPO order passed after the prescribed time limit is non-est and barred by limitation.
ITAT Delhi held that addition based on incriminating material found during the search carried out of ‘some other person’ i.e. third person/ party and assessing the same by invoking provision of section 147 instead of section 153C is unsustainable.
ITAT Mumbai remanded the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer as incriminating document found against the Assessee during search operation of third party is not provided to the Assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessment order passed in the name of non-existing entity will not survive. Accordingly, the assessment order is liable to be quashed and set aside.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition of unexplained investment u/s 68 sustained as genuineness of transaction in shares not proved. Further, SEBI also found manipulative trade executed in entities to whom shares were sold by the assessee.
