ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act unjustified when reimbursement of expenses is considered as receipts in total income and tax is paid on the same therefore no disallowance in terms of proviso to section 201.
As the AO had not allowed certain credits of advance tax, TDS and also interest on excess payment of self-assessment tax, assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) who issued necessary directions to the AO.
ITAT Mumbai dismissed the Revenue’s appeal in DCIT Vs. Welspun Steel Ltd., ruling that Section 14A disallowance cannot exceed exempt income. Read case details.
ITAT Mumbai ruled on Neville J Pereira vs. ITO, addressing Section 54 exemption for multiple residential flats. Analysis of capital gains and judicial precedents.
ITAT Mumbai sets aside CIT(A) order in Alps Construction’s case, citing lack of effective hearing, and remands the matter for fresh consideration.
ITAT Mumbai held survey statements cannot solely justify income addition without corroborative evidence. Case: DCIT Vs Ahinsa Infrastructure (AY 2014-15).
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance under rule 8D(2)(ii) r.w.s. 14A of the Income Tax Rules should be made on average value of investment yielding exempt income and not on the basis of quantum of investment based on market value.
ITAT Mumbai held that market development expenses towards sale of product is revenue in nature hence denial of same is unsustainable. Accordingly, market development expenses being revenue expenditure is allowed as deduction.
Lease premium and other charges received by assessee on behalf of the Government of Maharashtra and the ownership of the land remained with the State Government. Assessee’s role was confined to the development and management of industrial areas.
ITAT Mumbai rules that if TDS on jointly owned property is deposited in the husband’s name and wife does not claim it, full TDS credit should be granted to the husband.
