DCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Sumer Ville Investments (ITAT Mumbai)- Whether the notional interest on interest-free deposit from tenants is to be considered while determining the correct ALV u/s 23(1)(a)
ACIT Vs S.K.M. Construction Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- Land which forms part of investment in balance sheets is capital asset and hence profit derived from it is taxable under the head capital gain. Mere presence of profit motive not enough to decide the head of income.
Earth Castle Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income tax (ITAT Mumbai)- Imposition of penalty under s 271(1)(c) is sustainable if the assessee is unable to substantiate an explanation in relation to the addition made by the AO in respect of the undisclosed income found during the search and also did not file appeal against the addition.
DCIT Vs Tata Investment Corporation Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)- All income cannot be taxed, but only those incomes on which the taxpayer has a legitimate and enforceable right is liable to tax, the ITAT held. According to ITAT order, taxmen do not have the right to tax any receipts as the law is well settled that all receipts are not income, only those receipts with the character of income can be assessed to tax. The ITAT held that income can be considered “accrued” only when the taxpayer has a right to receive the income. Without a legally enforceable right, there cannot be an accrual of income.
Beejay Security & Finance Ltd v ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) -Satisfaction is required to be arrived at by the AO of the person who was searched under s 132 of the Act regarding any undisclosed income of the person who was not subjected to a search to hand over the seized material to the AO of the person to whom the seized documents belongs or is alleged to belong. The satisfaction required for proceedings under s 153C cannot be reduced to a mere formality of forwarding the documents found in the course of the search, which did not belong to the person searched, and which belonged to the person against whom proceedings under s 153C were sought to be initiated.
Prism Jewellery Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- The question of unexplained investment outside the books of account does not arise when the books itself has accounts purchases and payment through cheques. Assessee record itself indicates the purchases at that quantity and the same values were carried to the P & L Account as per the grouping shown above.
Assistant / Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Bombay Real Estate Development Company Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai)- Whether the CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow the deduction u/s 80-IB(10) to the assessee as allowable to a developer and builder for the Poisar Housing Project at Kandivali (E).
Capgemini India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai)- The provisions of section 10A of the Act were amended with effect from assessment year 2001-02 and as per the amended provisions, the profit and gains derived by an eligible undertaking are required to be deducted from the total income.
Weizmann Capital Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)- The income, which the Assessing Officer initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has as a matter of fact, not escaped assessment, it is not open to the Assessing Officer independently to assess some other income.
Sanjay Gala Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- In the present case, the assessee subscribed to shares in convertible foreign exchange and acquired the foreign exchange asset. In so far as this aspect is concerned, there is no dispute from the revenue authorities.
