ITAT referred to principle that expenses are allowable in year of crystallization of their liability, even if they relate to an earlier period. It held that expenses crystallized in current assessment year are deductible, regardless of when they were incurred.
Read the full text of ITAT Mumbai’s order in the case of LANXESS India Pvt Ltd vs DCIT, upholding TNMM method over CUP for benchmarking export transactions under manufacturing segment.
In the case of Gopalkrishna Pandu Shetty Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai), deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act is allowed for a property purchased in the wife’s name. Detailed analysis and conclusion provided.
Discover the ITAT Mumbai’s order directing re-adjudication regarding the liability of property tax paid by Rare Townships Pvt Ltd on behalf of the Collector.
Read the detailed analysis of Computer Modelling Group Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) regarding interest leviable from the assessee for short payment of tax due to payer’s TDS default before FY 2012-2013.
Explore the implications of jurisdictional issues in tax assessment with the case of YKM Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT, assessing the validity of section 143(3) assessments without proper notices under section 143(2).
Read detailed analysis as Kolkata ITAT removes unexplained cash credit addition in Sharda Ferro Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT case. Share capital scrutiny under section 68.
Detailed analysis of the appeal against a penalty imposed under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act by the ITAT Delhi in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Goyal vs ITO, including the reasons for the penalty dismissal.
In the Satishbhai Kadvabhai Sarvaiya Vs ITO case, ITAT Rajkot rules that during demonetization, deposits don’t warrant addition under U/s 69A if adequately explained.
ITAT Chennai observed that differences in valuation opinions are common, and the assessee’s claim based on an approved valuer’s report cannot be deemed as concealment of income. Citing precedents from the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court, the ITAT ruled that an incorrect claim in law does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars.
