-
ITAT - Since development of property was not started in AY 2001-02 and substantial payments was received only in AY 2005, capital gains was taxable only in AY 2005-06. The transfer of property did not take place on the date of execution of development agreement
Dilip Anand Vazirani vs. ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4748 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Sec 54F exemption available to assessee for investing capital gains in acquiring 'under construction residential house and will qualify for stipulated period of 3 years (meant for construction of new house)
Jyoti Arun Kothari vs ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4746 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 54F
-
S. 194-I: Lease premium and additional Floor Space Index (FSI) charges paid to MMRDA is not "rent" for TDS
ACIT vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4741 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 194-I
-
ITAT - Presumption not available u/s 14A r/w Rule 8D that as sufficient capital was available, investment in tax-free securities was made from own funds
Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4632 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 37(1): Non-compete fee to ex-MD is revenue expenditure
ACIT. vs. Clariant Chemicals (I) Ltd.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4594 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 37(1)
-
ITAT - Though not properly presented the principles of justice, equity and good concise cast a duty upon ITAT to correct mistakes apparent from record
Gits Food Products Pvt.Ltd. vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4591 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Forfeiture of share application money is a capital receipt and also no benefit or perquisite arises
Graviss Hospitality Ltd vs DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4580 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Impact of Explanation 2 to s. 195(1) inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.r.e.f. 01.04.1962 on law laid down in GE India Technology Centre 327 ITR 456 (SC) explained
ACIT. vs. Vilas N. Tamhankar
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4577 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 195(1)
-
S. 133A: A statement given u/s 133A(iii) is not on oath and can be retracted. Even a statement on oath does not create any estoppel and can be retracted
ITO. vs. Vandana Properties
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4576 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections. 133A, 133A(iii)
-
Addition U/s. 50C for mere variance with Stamp Duty Valuation without investigation not justified
Inderlok Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as Inderlok Infra-Agro Pvt. Ltd.) v/s. Income Tax Officer – Ward-5(2)(1), Mumbai
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4563 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 50C
-
ITAT - Disallowance/TDS cannot be made u/s 40(a)(ia) on the basis of subsequent amendment brought into the Act with retrospective effect
Rich Graviss Products Pvt Ltd. vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4560 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Write-down due to bankruptcy not revenue in nature
Tata Communications Ltd. vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4557 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Deposit made by individual taxpayer in Trust's bank account wherein assessee was a sole beneficiary represents unaccounted income
Mohan Manoj Dhupelia and Ors vs. DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4524 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Payment to Swiss Co. for installation / commissioning of complex 'mail room equipment', not taxable in India as not FTS
Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. vs. ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4522 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 9(l)(vii)
-
ITAT - AS-7 can be followed even though not notified u/s 145
International Metro Civil Contractors vs ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4517 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 145
-
S. 14A Rule 8D: No presumption can be drawn that investment in tax-free securities has come from own funds. The amount of disallowance has to be added to the book profits u/s 115JB
Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4507 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 14A
-
S. 2(47((v)/(vi): Mere execution of a development agreement does not result in a "transfer" if the approval of the municality is delayed and the developer has not started work
Dilip Anand Vazirani vs. ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4331 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 2(47((v)/(vi)
-
S. 271(1)(c): No penalty can be levied solely on the basis of admission made during survey if there is no corroborative evidence & no fault is found with the return of income
ACIT. vs. Crescent Property Developers
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4330 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 271(1)(c)
-
S. 9(1)(vii): Separate agreements for supply & installation cannot be regarded as one composite contract. However, as the installation is an "assembly" project, it will not constitute "fees for technical services". Even if such services are FTS u/s 9(1)(vii) they are excluded from taxation in India by Article 14 of the India-Swiss DTAA as the recipient has no PE in India
ITO. vs. Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4327 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 9(1)(vii),
-
S. 54: Purchasing the undivided share of a co-owner in a new flat constitutes a "purchase" & is eligible for exemption
ITO. vs. Narinder Kaur Bhatia
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4324 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 54
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.