Rameshkumar Tagraji Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) It is noted that the assessee during the first appellate proceeding before Ld. CIT(A) had filed the written submission mainly assailing the validity of the action of the AO to have framed the reassessment order without issuance of mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and cited the […]
ITAT Mumbai held that tally accounts produced before CIT(A) provides only better clarity and understanding of seized documents which are already on record before AO. Hence, submission of the same before CIT(A) doesn’t violate provisions of rule 46A of Income Tax Rules.
ITAT Mumbai held that merely because assessee has dealt with suspected scrips, addition u/s 69C is not justified as purchase and sale of scrips were through recognized stock exchange and payments were through banking channel only.
Jet Freight Logistics Limited Vs CIT Appeal (NFAC) (ITAT Mumbai) It is evident that assessee is in continuous need for payment of cash at various point of time and hence, assessee had to withdraw cash in order to satisfy its business requirements. Moreover, the assessee has got 9 branches all over India and such cash […]
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69 of the Income Tax Act on unaccounted, undisclosed income on the basis of the seized loose papers sustained as assessee failed to discharge his onus by contradicting the facts found during search proceedings.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of short term capital loss incurred on sale of shares by mechanically applying the information received from investigation wing is unsustainable in law.
Asuda Holdings Private Limited Vs CIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT Mumbai held that there is a clear diversion of funds for non-business purpose as funds are borrowed @18% and lended the same to one of its directors at 13.5%. Accordingly, disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) sustained. Facts- AO observed that assessee has taken loan from M/s. Elevators […]
Babulal Hajarimalji Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Undisputedly the entire addition in this case has been made by the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of guess work and estimation on the basis of some alleged information received from Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra and from DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai that “the assessee […]
Nothing can be added or subtracted. We cannot infer anything which is not available in the reasons recorded. Therefore, in the light of the discussion as well as judicial precedent cited (supra) we find that the reasons recorded does not muster the requirements of the law as necessary for reopening of the assessment.
ITAT Mumbai held that initiation of revisional proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as AO has carried out enquiry on the issues, however, has failed to discuss the same in the Assessment Order.
