Income from assets given on lease, though offered to tax under normal provisions, was not routed through Profit and Loss Account and the accounting treatment given by assessee was in accordance with mandatory AS-19 which mandated assessee to reflect investment in asset under finance lease as lease receivable in balance-sheet on asset side under the head loans and advances.
ACIT Vs Padmshree Dr. D.Y. Patil University (ITAT Mumbai) Before us, the main plea of the Ld. CIT-DR was that the development fee collected by the assessee trust on the basis of a single fee receipt from the students, shows that the students didn’t had any option but to mandatorily give/remit the fees (including the […]
Pamstar Exports Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Assessee has filed the appeal physically on 26.04.16 which was before the due date of filing the appeal and Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal holding that assessee has filed the appeal manually which is invalid. Admittedly, the scheme of physical filing of appeal was replaced by electronic /online […]
Owens Corning India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) We observe that in A.Y. 2006-07 Assessing Officer observed that assessee has claimed depreciation of ₹.93,40,242/- and when the assessee was asked to submit the supporting evidences in support of the above claim, assessee failed to furnish the supporting evidences such as bills, date on which […]
An appeal can be filed only on the basis of order/intimation, against which the assessee is aggrieved. In the absence of any such document, it will not be possible for any appellate authority to address the grievance of the assessee
Gupta Synthetics Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) It was observed that the assessee had entered into a sale deed dated 13/03/2012 with Numech Synthetics P Ltd for sale of land at Dadra in UT Dadra and Nagar Haveli for a sale consideration of Rs.70 lakhs. A registered agreement dated 13/03/2012 was executed. The assessee contends […]
Late Smt. Bhanuben Dhanji Shah Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The brief facts of the case pertaining to the issue, as emanating from the record, are: During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to submit proof with regard to cost of improvement claim of Rs.81,775, with supporting bills, date of incurring such expenditure, […]
ITAT Mumbai held that mere RBI recognition of debt instrument as additional tier/ capital doesn’t change the nature of perpetual debt instrument. Hence, interest expenses on perpetual bonds, allowable as deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
Where assessee-firm claimed to have received unsecured loans during relevant years, however, it could not prove genuineness of unsecured loan taken and underneath sources for making these investments, addition made by Assessing Officer under section 68 was justified
Assessee was entitled to the benefit of indexation on the total cost of acquisition from the year of allotment of flat dehors the fact that assessee had paid installments over a period of time subsequent to the date of allotment.
