ITAT Mumbai held that no transfer pricing adjustment could have been made in the hands of assessee on account of ALP of specified domestic transactions as section 92BA(i) of Income Tax Act was omitted. Thus, since provisions of section 92D are not applicable, penalty u/s. 271G of the Income Tax Act untenable.
ITAT Mumbai held that provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act does not apply to developer who has taken over the possession of lawn or building or both for the purpose of the development.
CIT(A) decides that interest income from FD linked to business activities is correctly classified as business income, not “Income from Other Sources.
ITAT Mumbai held interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investment in cooperative bank is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act even after insertion of section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act.
Tribunal ruled that the relevant date for acquisition should be when the possession is handed over, not merely the agreement date.
Detailed analysis of the Sujauddian Kasimsab Sayyed Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) case involving immovable property and tax implications under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai rules that the date of possession determines eligibility for capital gains deduction under Section 54. Learn more about the Sompalsingh J. Kataria Vs ITO case.
ITAT Mumbai removes penalty imposed on Sunil Bhagwandas Vorani (HUF) as addition was made on estimation basis, not due to concealment.
Read the full text of the ITAT Mumbai order regarding violation of Section 143(1) of the IT Act and the final assessment passed within two days. Detailed analysis and conclusion included.
Explore the detailed case of Sankpal Developers vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) regarding the treatment of unsecured loans under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Understand the implications of proving creditworthiness and genuineness in tax assessments.
