Exxon Mobil Company India Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)-A comparable cannot be eliminated just because it is a loss making unit. Similarly, a higher profit making unit cannot also be automatically eliminated just because the comparable company earned higher profits than the average. In other words, as a general principle, both loss making unit and high profit making unit cannot be eliminated from the comparables unless, there are specific reasons for eliminating the same which is other than the general reason that a comparable has incurred loss or has made abnormal profits.
Dy. CIT Vs. Ms/. Shah Builders & Developers,- Uto 31st March, 2005, deduction u/s. 80/B(10) is allowable to housing projects approved by the local authority having residential units with commercial user to the extent permitted under the DC Rules/Regulations framed by the respective local authority irrespective of the fact that the project is approved as “housing project” or ‘residential plus commercial’. Tribunal was not justified in holding that upto 31st March, 2005, deduction u/s. 80/B(10) would be allowable to the projects approved by the local authority having residential building with commercial user upto 10% ofthe total built-up area ofthe plot; cl (d) inserted in s. 80-/B(10) w.e.f. 1st April, 2005 is prospective and not retrospective.
Recently ITAT Mumbai in the case of Bechtel International Inc., USA v. ADIT held that mere inactivity for a limited period does not mean that the taxpayer’s business ceased to exist or that it did not carry on any business at all. Expenditure incurred during the said period of inactivity / lull is allowable even though the taxpayer has not earned any business income.
ITO, Mumbai Vs GSB Capital Markets Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)- Whether where the assessee has considered the amount receivable from debtor as bad debts in the books of account, no disallowance can be made for want of fulfilment of conditions of section 36(2) – Whether where the amount is given to the sister concern by the assessee interest-free out of own funds and for business purposes, no disallowance can be made for interest expenses u/s 40A(2)(a) – Whether the losses of mutual funds are rightly adjusted against the speculation profit on shares in view of explanation to section 73 – Whether where the amount is taken by the assessee under a business transaction, no addition can be made u/s 2(22)(e) for deemed dividend. – Assessee’s appeal partly allowed.
Century Textiles & Industries Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai -In the instant case, the original order was passed on 22.3.2004 u/s 143(3) of the I T Act and since the reassessment notice was issued for the purpose of adding the arrears of depreciation debited to P&L account and the revaluation reserves credited to P&L account to be reduced while computing book profits and since the order of the CIT relates to non-disallowance of expenditure in respect of exempt income under clause (f) to Explanation(1) of sec 115JB; therefore, in view of the decisions cited above, the period of limitation provided for in 263(2) would commence from the date of original assessment which, in the instant case is 22.3.2004. Since the order of the CIT u/s 263 is dated 30.3.2009, therefore, the same is barred by limitation.
DCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Axis Electrical Components (I) Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)- if adjustments had to be made to the closing stock, in the same token value of purchase/sale of goods and inventory had to be further adjusted to include the amount of tax, duty, cess etc. and even opening stock has to be recomputed in terms of section 145A of the Act, in which event there is no change in the end result and no case was made out by the Assessing Officer to make an addition. Even u/s. 43B of the Act so long as taxes were paid before the due date of filing of return of income addition cannot be made.
Explore the verdict in Hidelbergcement India Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) on reassessment validity and foreign exchange gain dispute. Legal insights here.
Grameen Initiative for Women vs. DIT (E) (ITAT Mumbai)- Hon’ble Bombay High Court – Nagpur Bench has held that there is no requirement under the Act that an institution constituted for advancement of any object of general public utility must be registered as a trust. Therefore, in the present case before us, mere because the assessee association is registered as company under sec. 25 of the Companies Act, that by itself cannot be a ground to refuse registration under sec. 12A/12AA of the Act. Thus, this ground of rejection of registration by the Commissioner of Income-tax, is also rejected. The only reason for which the registration was declined was on the ground that the assessee could not produce the certificate from the Charity Commissioner and that reason, as we have noted above, is not legally sustainable. In view of these discussions, and bearing in mind entirety of the case, we direct the learned Director to grant registration to the assesse appellant. The assesse succeeds in the appeal.
M/s Total Securities Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Whether penalty paid by a registered broker is not a fine for any infringement of law and hence allowable – Whether admission fee paid by the assessee to stock exchange for acquiring membership is revenue – Whether salary paid to directors can be disallowed on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of services rendered when similar payments have been allowed in subsequent years – Whether payments made to arbitragers and jobbers is covered by 194C and hence the same is not allowable if TDS is not deducted.
ITO vs. Laxmi Jewel Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)- As per Instruction No. 3 of 2011 dated 09.02.2011 appeal before appellate Tribunal can be filed where the tax effect exceeds the monitory limit of 3,00,000/-. However, considering the similar situation where tax limits were modified by the CBDT Instruction No. 5 of 2008 the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Madhukar K. Inamdar (HUF) (supra) held that the circular will be applicable to the cases pending before the court either for admission or for final disposal.
