-
S. 50C(2): Reference to DVO cannot be made if assessee has challenged the valuation by the stamp authorities and even if the said challenge is dismissed on ground that as purchaser paid the duty, assessee had no locus standi to challenge stamp valuation
Seksaria Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4308 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 50C(2)
-
Information received by the AO that the assessee is a beneficary in a "discretionary" trust set up in Liechtenstein can form the basis of assessment of undisclosed income in the assessee's hands. Argument that the trust is "discretionary" and that the amount has not "accrued" to him or that the documents are "not corroborated" is not acceptable
Mohan Manoj Dhupelia vs. DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4303 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 194-I: Payment for use of an asset simpliciter, whether with control and possession in its legal sense or not, could be said to be for the use of an asset. However, payment for a specific act such as power transmission and even if an asset is used in the said process, cannot be said to be for the use of an asset
ACIT vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4302 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 194-I
-
"Innovative" method of department of forcing hapless assessees to give "consent letters" for tax recovery deplored and warning issued
Johnson & Johnson Ltd. vs. ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4300 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 147: Reopening on the possibility that the assessee AOP may or may not be a taxable unit is based on surmise and presumption & is invalid
Investeringsforeningen BankInvest vs. DDIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4299 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 147
-
Purchases cannot be treated as bogus solely on the ground that suppliers are not traceable if the assessee has paid by a/c payee cheques and produced the income-tax and sales-tax documents and bank statements of the suppliers
Ganpatraj A Sanghavi vs. ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4297 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 271(1)(c): Explanation that bona fide mistake was committed on advice of CA is a reasonable one as per Explanation 1B of s. 271(1) and does not attract penalty
ACIT vs. Cecilia Haresh Chaganlal
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4290 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 271(1)(c)
-
S. 41(1): Unclaimed & unproven liabilities are deemed to have ceased and are assessable as income
ITO. Vs. Sajjankumar Didwani
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4285 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 41(1)
-
No S. 14A/ Rule 8D Disallowance if accounts not examined. Consent fee paid to SEBI is not penalty for infraction of law
ITO. vs. Reliance Share and Stock Brokers (P) Ltd.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4284 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 14A
-
Various arguments on the applicability of s. 14A & Rule 8D where the AO has not recorded satisfaction, where the shares are held in strategic/ subsidiary companies, held as stock-in-trade, where there are surplus funds and the quantum of disallowance under Explanation (f) to s. 115JA/ 115JB considered
HSBC Invest Direct (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4280 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 14A, 115JA, 115JB
-
Law on the tests to distinguish whether gains on sale of shares is short-term or business profits explained
Harsha L. Tahilramani vs. ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4278 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 271(1)(c): Wrong claim for depreciation by showing a finance or loan transaction as a lease transaction attracts penalty
Times Guaranty Ltd. vs. ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4270 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 271(1)(c)
-
S. 43(5)(a): Loss on foreign currency forward contracts by a manufacturer/ exporter is a “speculation loss” and not a “hedging loss”
Araska Diamond Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4259 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 43(5)(a)
-
Sec. 194A TDS not deductible on Hundi discount as it is not interest
DCIT. Vs. Shri Harnamsingh Kulbirsingh Maker
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4252 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 194A
-
Even if s. 50C addition can be made on the basis of stamp duty valuation, addition u/s 69B cannot be made barely on the basis of DVO's report
ACIT. vs. Dilip Nabera (HUF)
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4216 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections. 142A, 50C, 69B
-
ITAT Cannot be Precluded from handling any point which appertains to assessment even if it is raised for the first time
Pradeep G. Vora Vs. ITO
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4210 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
A.O Cannot act as a reviewing authorithy u/s 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961
DCIT. Vs. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd.
(2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4209 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 147
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.