citedby: 879401

Mehta Exports, Mumbai vs Assessee on 4 August, 2010

In fact, it raises several fundamental issues, viz., as to how the expenditure allowable in the computation of the income assessable under one 7 ITA No.7321/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2007-08) Mehta Exports vs. Addl. CIT head of income could possibly be based on the income assessed under another head of income. Put differently, how income assessed under one head, viz. 'income from other sources', could possibly form the basis for allowance of expenditure in computing the income under another head, i.e., 'profits and gains from business and profession'. Two, without prejudice, under which head of income or provision of law would the expenditure attributable to the income assessed under the other head, as income from other sources in the instant case, be allowed. This is as only the expenditure exigible to be set off against the income assessable under that head, as section 56, being specifically provided for, as u/s.57, could be allowed there-against. We decide accordingly.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Inteegrated Decisions And Systems , ... vs Assessee on 12 June, 2015

The Jaipur Coordinate Bench in A.Y. 2006-07 has rightly held that the variation of ALP less than +\- 5% requires no ALP adjustment in the case of Shankar Exports Vs. Addl.CIT, 132 TTJ 107 and Ravi Kumar Rawat Vs ITO 134 TTJ 634.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

J.B. Exports, Surat vs Assessee on 28 April, 2011

In assessee's own case for A.Y. 2004-05 we have already taken a view in assessee's favour bearing ITA No.3206/Ahd/2007 titled as M/s.J.B. Exports vs. Addl.CIT vide order dated 29/04/2011. The relevant portion contained in paragraph Nos.6 to 10; reproduced below:

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M.S.M. Refill Manufacturers, Mumbai vs Assessee on 26 July, 2011

In fact, the same gives rise to certain fundamental issues, as observed by the tribunal in the case of Mehta Exports v. Addl. CIT (in ITA No. 7321/Mum/2010 dated 28/8/2013), as under:

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ito 18(2)(1), Mumbai vs Kamini Jewels, Mumbai on 9 December, 2016

9. Similar and identical issues were decided in favour of the appellant in the case of M/s. Goenka Diamond & Jewellers Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur vide ITA no. 509/JP/2011; in the case of M/s. Amar Exports v. Addl.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ito, New Delhi vs Dwarkesh Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi on 5 January, 2017

The Id. AR has relied upon the decision in the case of Shanker Exports v. Addl. CIT (2010) 132 TTJ 107 (JP) in this regard. Further, it is submitted that the AO ignored the part payment made to this party of Rs. 1,99,000/- by the assessee by account payee cheques. Further, the confirmation' of the party and legal notice from the advocate of the party demanding the balance Outstanding amount were also produced before the AO which has not been disputed by the AO. As regards the alleged cutting/overwriting, it is submitted by the Id. AR that these are simply clerical mistakes and the figures in the bills are the same as the figures in the books of account. As regards, making/polish expenses, it is submitted by the Id. AR that it is not necessary to charge them separately in the invoices as the value of purchases/sales include the above making/polishing charges. As regards the purchases from Jain family, it is submitted that said family is an old customer and simply because the payment is made after three months, the transaction does not become non- genuine. As regards the G.P. ratio it is argued by the Id. AR that the AO did not ask for any explanation during the assessment or remand proceeding in this Page 6 of 10 regard.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search