Search Results For: Rajendra (AM)


ACIT vs. Tristar Jewellery Exports Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 31, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 6, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus sales and purchases: Reliance on statement of supplier who confesses to providing accommodation entries without giving assessee right of cross-examination violates principles of natural justice and the addition has to be deleted in toto

The reassessment order is as a result of violation of the natural principle of audi alteram partem. A statement recorded at the back of a party cannot be used against such party without confronting such statement to the party. Hence, on this score alone, the reassessment order is unsustainable in the eye of law and we hereby cancel the same

Preimus Investment And Finance Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 13, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 10, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): Even if no business is carried, the expenditure incurred to maintain the corporate entity has to be allowed as a deduction

There is no doubt that the assessee is a corporate entity. Even if it is not carrying on any business activity it has to incur some expenditure to keep up its corporate entity. Therefore expenditure incurred by it has to be allowed

ITO vs. Paresh Arvind Gandhi (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 13, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 29, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 69C: Law on treating purchases as "bogus" because the supplier is treated as a "hawala" dealer by the VAT authorities explained

The AO had not doubted the genuineness of the purchase but had made the disallowance of Rs.1.37 crores invoking the provisions of 69C of the Act. AO made the addition as the supplier was declared a hawala dealer by the VAT Department. It was a good starting point for making further investigation and taken it to logical end. However, the addition is not sustainable as the purchases had been made through A/c payee cheques that were duly reflected in the bank statement of the assessee ….

Daga Global Chemicals Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 1, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 2, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income

The assessee only received Rs.1,82,362 as dividend income, therefore, there is no question of disallowance of Rs.14,58.412 by invoking section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income.

Johnson & Johnson Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 31, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 7, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
"Innovative" method of department of forcing hapless assessees to give "consent letters" for tax recovery deplored and warning issued

At this time it came to the light that the AO has followed an innovative method of collecting taxes despite specific directions of the Bench. Therefore we had called the AO who had collected the revenue by flouting the directions

Araska Diamond Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 17, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 20, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 43(5)(a): Loss on foreign currency forward contracts by a manufacturer/ exporter is a “speculation loss” and not a “hedging loss”

Unless the assessee shows that there was some existing contract in respect of which he was likely to suffer a loss because of future price fluctuations and that it was to safeguard against such loss that he entered into the

Top