A deep dive into the significant ruling of ITAT Mumbai in ITO Vs Asahi Infrastructure Projects Ltd case, exploring the issues related to the reopening of the assessment and non-genuine purchases, as per the guidelines set in the landmark GKN Driveshaft case.
The ITAT Mumbai case of Rajesh Prabhudas Parekh vs CIT(A), ITO is an insightful judgment on on-money payments in real estate transactions and the necessity of corroboration in such cases.
ITAT Mumbai held that rejection of books of accounts of the assessee being a corporate assessee and subjected to statutory audits cannot be done in a light manner. Accordingly, matter remitted back to AO for re-adjudication.
Explore the intricate details and implications of the ITAT Mumbai ruling in the ITO vs Mayur R. Kamdar case. Delve into the tax implications of alleged bogus purchases and understand how this landmark case has unfolded.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition of notional interest on advances to related parties (i.e. the directors and sister concern/related parties) unsustainable as the assessee has been able to substantiate availability of sufficient interest free funds.
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment prior to disposing of the objections filed by the assessee is unsustainable and bad-in-law.
ITAT Mumbai held that non-receipt of confirmation from the sundry creditors under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act cannot result into addition since parties are identified, transaction of purchase of land is accepted and reason for outstanding amount is explained.
ITAT Mumbai held that the bank guarantee rates cannot be considered for benchmarking corporate guarantee fees, therefore benchmarking of AO and DRP is also incorrect. It depends on creditworthiness of parties and benefit arising out of the same in the hands of the parties to the transaction.
ITAT Mumbai held that activities of import of goods for re-export (i.e. trading activities) falls within the meaning of service defined u/s 2(z) of SEZ Act and accordingly the profits and gains derived from such services rendered from SEZ would be eligible for deduction u/s. 10AA of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai concurred with AO and CIT(A), highlighting that a Board Resolution doesn’t create a liability until implemented. The tribunal emphasized that costs for employee termination and lease termination arise when notice of termination is served.
