Delve into the verdict of ITAT Mumbai regarding ESOP expenses, highlighting the difference in fair market value and its allowance as deductible expenditure. Learn from the case of Lupin Limited Vs DCIT.
In a case of DCIT Vs Milan Kavin Parikh, ITAT Mumbai dismisses Revenue’s appeal against deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the quantum addition was deleted.
In Uttam Narayanmal Mehta S K Metal Vs ITO case, ITAT Mumbai directs AO to re-adjudicate mistake in ITR filing regarding double taxation of profit.
In the case of Mohd Shahid Mohd Yusuf Qureshi Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai), an ex-parte order was remanded due to denial of proper opportunity. Full analysis here.
ITAT Mumbai deletes addition on whole amount from sale of shares in Nikunj Kaushik Shah Vs ITO case, criticizing unwarranted litigation, incompetence & casual approach
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance made u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act read with rule 8D deleted as tax free funds were more than investment made on which exempt income was earned.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act by treating transaction of sale of shares of Sunrise Asian as a bogus penny stock unsustainable as material on records supports genuineness of the transactions.
ITAT Mumbai rules no addition under section 68 based on turnover declared under section 44 AD of Income Tax Act for Kalpesh Kantilal Gada. Detailed analysis and order explained.
In Ajit Chandrashekar Dighe Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai), learn about the importance of substantiating Form 26AS or Form 16 for claiming TDS credit. Detailed analysis provided.
The case pertained to the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 1,16,82,953/- paid on an unsecured loan. This ruling sheds light on the meticulous examination of evidence and the importance of substantiating claims in tax matters.
