ITAT Mumbai allowed an appeal by a private discretionary trust, directing the re-computation of surcharge at 15% instead of 37%. The decision follows the Special Bench ruling in Aradhya Jain Trust vs. ITO, clarifying surcharge slab applicability for trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai dismissed the revenue’s appeal against Garware Hi-Tech Films, upholding the assessee’s right to a higher MAT credit set-off.
Mere involvement in a flagged scrip, in absence of concrete evidence of manipulation or unaccounted funds, could not justify taxing bonafide transactions. Therefore, the additions under sections 68 and 69C were unsustainable.
he ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of NK Infra JV a partnership firm directing the removal of a 37% surcharge and cess incorrectly levied by the CPC on an income below the ₹50 lakh threshold.
ITAT Mumbai dismissed Revenue’s appeal, upholding deletion of a Rs. 16 lakh penalty against Micro Plantea Limited due to a lack of incriminating material in a search assessment.
The ITAT Mumbai has ruled on the distinction between rental income and income from providing facilities. The Tribunal classified rental as “House Property” income and facility charges as “Business Income,” remanding several other issues.
ITAT Mumbai held that trade receivable shown as net of provision for doubtful debts would not be hit by section 115JB(i) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, addition of provision of bad and doubtful debts to book profits computed u/s. 115JB not sustained.
The Mumbai ITAT ruled that MLI provisions cannot be applied to deny treaty benefits under the India–Ireland DTAA without a specific notification under Section 90(1) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that since there was no effective service of orders upon the assessee as the order sent by the department went to spam folder. Thus, delay in filing of an appeal condoned and matter restored back to CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
ITAT Mumbai held that denial of TDS credit merely because of non-reflection in Form 26AS is not justified since there could be varied technological or other reasons where the relevant data pertaining to the assessee doesn’t get reflected in Form 26AS.
