Vikas Sharma Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that if the cash deposited in assessee’s bank account has already been taxed in the hands of M/s. Kareem’s Hospitality Pvt. Ltd (employer of assessee) or in the hands of the director of the assessee company Mr. Kareem Dhanani then no addition is warranted in the hands […]
Transindia Freight Services Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT held that going by the principle of consistency in the stand taken by the Revenue in earlier as well as subsequent assessment years in scrutiny assessment proceedings, we hold that the income received from car rental of Rs.6,00,000/- is to be assessed as “income from […]
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessment order passed in variation of the procedures prescribed u/s. 144B of the Income Tax Act would render the assessment order as non est.
ITAT Mumbai held that that the ‘marked to market loss’ is not a notional loss and is, therefore, allowable expenditure.
ITAT Mumbai held that while determining the amount of deemed dividend under Explanation 2 to Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, the current profit is not to be included to be part of accumulated profit.
Linklaters LLP Vs Asst Vs CIT (IT)-3(1)(2) Mumbai (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT Mumbai held that remuneration received for providing legal services doesn’t amount to ‘fees for technical services’, where the provisions of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act is not applicable. Accordingly, the same is not taxable. Facts- The assessee is a LLP incorporated under the laws […]
ITAT Mumbai held that when assessee submits the sales to be fictitious sales, the onus is on AO to prove that such sales were cash sales as claimed by him. Addition unsustainable as AO failed to provide any evidence of cash sales.
ITAT Mumbai held that provisions contained in section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act are not attracted in case of the trust created for the benefit of the members / relatives of the settler who have been identified as beneficiaries.
ITAT Mumbai held that even after request from assessee to refer DVO for correct fair market value of the subject property, AO was duty-bound to refer the same to DVO. Accordingly, matter remanded back with a direction to refer the matter to DVO and decide the issue.
ITAT Mumbai held that as entire reasons for reopening were recorded by incorrect assumption of facts, accordingly, reopening was invalid and bad-in-law. Hence, subsequent invocation of revisional jurisdictional under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is untenable in law.
