Sponsored
    Follow Us:

ITAT Mumbai

No Section 56(2)(x) addition if Market Value Difference Is Within 10% tolerance limit

August 18, 2024 771 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Mumbai grants relief to Tarun Mohan Jani, ruling that property valuation difference within 10% tolerance limit doesn’t warrant addition under Section 56(2)(x).

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) not sustained in absence of intention to conceal income: ITAT Mumbai

August 16, 2024 864 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Mumbai held that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not imposable in absence of wilful intention on the part of the assessee to conceal income since all the errors in original return was rectified vide revised return.

Jurisdiction of ITAT tied to location of AO who issued original assessment order

August 16, 2024 612 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT’s jurisdiction in ACIT Vs Bank of Baroda case is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer. Appeals should be filed where the original assessment was made.

Disallowance of deduction u/s. 80P by CPC is beyond the scope of adjustment u/s. 143(1): ITAT Mumbai

August 15, 2024 1029 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance made by the CPC u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act on the claim of deduction u/s. 80P of the Income Tax Act is beyond the scope of adjustment u/s. 143(1) accordingly the adjustment is deleted.

ITAT Mumbai Cancels Penalty Under Section 271B for Late Audit Report

August 13, 2024 441 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Mumbai cancels ₹1 lakh penalty imposed on Sameer Mavji Patel under Section 271B for delayed tax audit report, citing reasonable cause due to survey delays.

Sale of shares on stock exchange cannot be treated as unexplained u/s. 68: ITAT Mumbai

August 6, 2024 1722 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Mumbai held that addition in respect of sale proceeds received for sale of shares on the stock exchange (BSE) as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act unjustified.

Holding period computable from allotment letter date & not sale agreement registration date

August 5, 2024 4062 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Mumbai states holding period for capital gains should be computed from the allotment letter date, not the sale agreement registration date.

Addition already finalized u/s. 143(3) cannot be added again vide order u/s. 144: ITAT Mumbai

August 1, 2024 357 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Mumbai held that passing of assessment order u/s. 144/147 making addition of alleged bogus purchase which is already added vide assessment order passed u/s. 143(3)/147 and has attained finality is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

Penalty u/s 271G untenable as no transfer pricing adjustment possible due to omission of section 92BA(i): ITAT Mumbai

August 1, 2024 204 Views 0 comment Print

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.

Provisions of section 56(2)(x) of Income Tax Act doesn’t apply to developer: ITAT Mumbai

August 1, 2024 1146 Views 0 comment Print

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.

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
February 2025
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425262728