Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › Dimension Data Asia Pacific Pte Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Dimension Data Asia Pacific Pte Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Posted on by itatbar — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 8, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 5, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
100% stay of demand has to be granted in high pitched assessments as per Instruction No. 96 of 1969

The Tribunal granted 100 percent stay of demand because:

a) The assessed income was more than 10 times the returned income. (Instruction 96 of 1969 was relied upon)

b) The stand taken by the AO was at variance with the stand taken by TPO.

Related Posts:

  • Dimension Data Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) As per Section 90(2), the assessee is entitled to claim benefits of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement to the extent the same are more "beneficial" as compared to the provisions of the Act. While doing so, in cases of multiple sources of income, an assessee is entitled to adopt the…
  • DCIT vs. JSW Limited (ITAT Mumbai) In the light of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that rather than taking a pedantic view of the rule requiring pronouncement of orders within 90 days, disregarding the important fact that the entire country was in lockdown, we should compute the period of 90 days by…
  • DCIT vs. Ozoneland Agro Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) Section 56 allows the assessees to adopt one of the methods of their choice. But,the AO held that the assessee should have adopted only one method for determining the value of the shares.In our opinion,it was beyond the jurisdiction of the AO to insist upon a particular system, especially the…
  • Shantivijay Jewels Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) We find that DJ had admitted of issuing bogus bills. But, nowhere he had admitted that he had issued accommodation bills to the assessee. In our opinion, there is subtle but very important difference in issuing bogus bills and issuing accommodation bills to a particular party. The difference becomes very…
  • DCIT vs. Piramal Realty Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) Even amendment to section 68 brought by Finance Act, 2012 does not refer to valuation. The insertion of the proviso to section 68 of the Act by Finance Act, 2012 casts an additional onus on the closely held companies to prove source in the shareholders subscribing to the shares of…
  • DCIT vs. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee pursuant to the terms of the "agreement‟ had only received standard facilities i.e bandwith services from RJIPL. In fact, as observed by the CIT(A), the assessee only had an access to services and did not have any access to any equipment deployed by RJIPL for providing the bandwith…

Related Judgements

  1. Johnson & Johnson Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    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 … Johnson & Johnson Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT…
  2. Gausia Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    The assessee sought revision of its assessment, finalized u/s.143(3) on 03.12.2008, accepting the returned income of Rs.35,19,179/-, u/s.264 of the Act on the ground that the deduction u/s.80-IB, to which it was entitled, had not been allowed per the impugned … Gausia Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT…
  3. DCIT vs. Aanjaneya Life Care Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) 

    The assessee claimed that it was having meagre cash and current balances and was in financial constraints during the year under consideration. If there is financial hardship to the assessee it has to be considered as sufficient cause in which event penalty cannot be leviedRead more ›
  4. Natural Gas Company Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    The interest cost is toward the retention of the borrowing and, concomitantly, the retention or the holding of the asset under reference, i.e., is a function of the holding period. It is, thus, rightly described as a holding cost or a period cost, depending upon how one may look…
  5. Sanghavi Savla Commodity Brokers Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    The Tribunal quashed penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) for AY 2007-08 as penalty show cause notice failed to specify default committed by assessee i.e. the AO did not delete inappropriate words / parts whereby it was not clear as to the default committed by assessee was for concealing particulars…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*