ITAT Mumbai deleted penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act as penalty order was issued without striking off the irrelevant limb/ inapplicable words.
JCIT (OSD) Vs Yashmaan Pathak (ITAT Mumabi) No scope of adhoc or estimated addition u/s. 41(1) & the entire conditions precedent for invoking section 41(1) has to be fulfilled. Assessee has filed his return of income and the AO during scrutiny issued show cause notice to the assessee to file details and confirmation of the […]
ITAT Mumbai held that plausible view of AO cannot be held as erroneous by ld. CIT(E) without conducting necessary enquiries or verification. Accordingly, initiated of revision jurisdiction u/s 263 on mere conjectures, suspicions and surmises, which is not permitted.
ITAT Mumbai held that expenditure incurred towards Corporate Social Responsibility are specifically disallowed as per explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of mis-reporting of insurance company is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Mumbai held that while computing capital gains arising of transfer of capital asset acquired by the assessee under the will, the indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with respect to the year in which the previous owner first held the asset.
ITAT Mumbai held that charges received for carrying out of re-fabrication of bushing doesn’t tantamount to ‘make available of technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or process’ and hence cannot be taxed under Article 12 of Indo-Singapore tax treaty.
ITAT Mumbai held that exemption provisions of section 54F of the Income Tax Act are beneficial provisions and are to be construed liberally. Accordingly, as assesse invested in one residential property, exemption u/s 54F duly available.
ITAT Mumbai held that Section 10AA does not prescribe any time limit for realization of export proceeds. Hence, the benefit of Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied merely because the export proceeds were realized after the expiry of 6 months from the end of relevant previous year in which export sales were made.
ITAT Mumbai held that initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without informing the charges framed for initiation of the same via statutory notice renders the entire proceeding inacceptable.
