Explore the case of Mahapalika Kshetra Madhyamik Shikshak Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit vs CIT(A) (ITAT Mumbai) regarding deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
Despite legal contention that addition under section 69 was erroneous, ITAT emphasized necessity of substantiating genuineness of transactions, rather than merely disputing section under which additions were made.
In the case of Krishnamurthy Thiagarajan vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai), AO’s failure to record dissatisfaction u/s 14A led to ITAT allowing expenditure claim under Section 14A related to earning exempt income.
ITAT Mumbai grants relief to Tata Steel Limited, allowing deduction of interest paid on Perpetual Non-Convertible Debentures (PNCD) under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.
Detailed analysis of Chandarani N. Goyal Vs ITO case where Mumbai ITAT ruled that money received as a security deposit, if refunded, is not taxable under section 56(2)(vii)(a) of the Income Tax Act.
In Chandresh P. Thakker vs National Faceless Assessment Centre case, Mumbai ITAT allows commission expenses if supported by evidence of services rendered by commission agents and income shown in return.
Mumbai ITAT clarifies that action under section 153C can’t be based solely on survey material. Detailed analysis of the case and its implications.
ITAT Mumbai overturns AO’s addition of Rs. 80 Lakh against mere Rs. 50,000 share capital infusion, ruling in favor of taxpayer’s proof of subscriber genuineness.
Indian Oil Employees Welfare Cooperative Society Ltd. vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) case discusses the eligibility of cooperative society interest income under section 80P. Read the detailed analysis and conclusion.
In Med-Link Devices Pvt Ltd vs DCIT case, ITAT directs re-adjudication as taxpayer fails to provide detailed expenditure of Rs. 35.2 lakhs claimed as business promotion expenses.
