Tag: ITAT Mumbai

DVO Reference u/s 55A condition u/s 50C applies only when stamp duty value is higher than the sales consideration as per agreement. This was held by ITAT Mumbai in its recent judgment as under: Case Law Details: ITA No. 5133/Mum/2014  Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Shree Aditya …

Assessee entitled to option u/s 112(1)(a) for indexation/ non-indexation and pay tax on capital gains @20% or 10%. Benefit cannot be denied merely for not filing details in income return. This was ruled by ITAT Mumbai in a recent judgment as under. Case Law Details: ITA No. 5977/Mum/2013  Assessment Year : 2010-11 …

ITAT, Mumbai in a recent judgment has held that for determination of Annual Value of House property, u/s 23(1), whether the residential property (flat) was habitable or not was a question of fact that can be determined only after appreciation of evidences and remanded the case back to AO. Case Law Details: …

ITAT Mumbai, in a recent case has stated that demolition/destruction of house not necessarily results in transfer u/s 2(47) by extinguishment of rights in a capital assets for capital gain purpose. Case Law Details: I.T.A. No. 6169/Mum/2013  Assessment Year : 2007-08 Dilip Manhar Parekh vs.  Dy. Commissioner of …

In a recent judgment, ITAT Mumbai has opined that merely because an income has been taxed in the hands of recipient , does not mean that it is a deductible expenditure in the hands of the person making the payment instead the deduction is required to be examined …

In a recent judgment, ITAT Mumbai has held that as per CBDT circular no. 09 of 2014, construction cost on development of infrastructure facility of roads/highways under BOT project may be amortized and claimed as income tax business expenditure Case Details: ITA No.644/M/2013  Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Koratalaiyar Bridge …

Assessee not liable to Long Term Capital Gain for being registered owner where the land was leased out to a builder company for construction of flats and payments for flat sales were received directly by the builder. Case Details: INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI I.T.A. No 4518/Mum/2012 Assessment …

Penalty-271(1)(c) – share application money received from different companies with common addresses The Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) raises rebuttable presumption and once the assessee has furnished all the evidences in support of its explanation and has substantiated his claim then the onus cost upon him is discharged and …