Mumbai ITAT rules that a retracted statement without nexus to the taxpayer cannot justify addition under Sec 69A, offering relief to the appellant in Mayur Kanjibhai Shah Vs ITO.
ITAT Mumbai held that rate of interest @18% paid to related party towards unsecured loan is reasonable as rate of interest charged by bank @12% is with security, whereas, rate of interest charged on unsecured loan is without any security.
Mumbai ITAT directs AO to reconsider immunity from penalty u/s 270AA for Prathamesh Vivek Khot vs ITO. Error in Form 68 caused delay. Detailed analysis & implications.
Mumbai ITAT allows depreciation on ‘right to collect toll tax’ on infrastructure facilities for Roadstar Investment vs ACIT. Detailed analysis and implications provided.
Mumbai ITAT rules income from sale and subscription of journals not basis to deny exemption u/s 11 if not main objects of trust in ITO vs Satvichar Darshan case. Detailed analysis provided.
ITAT Mumbai held that as under distribution segment assessee is purchasing Finished Drug Formulation from its AE for sale in India and under manufacturing segment assessee is transacting with non-AEs, it is fair and reasonable to segregated contract of manufacturing activity and distribution activity. Accordingly, matter remanded.
Explore the Mumbai ITAT’s ruling on disallowing contributions to Provident Fund and ESIC if not deposited within due dates, impacting C. Doctor & Co. Pvt. Ltd.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessment order passed without satisfying mandatory provisions of section 92CA and CBDT instruction no. 3 of 2016 is order falling within the meaning of erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Hence, revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act rightly invoked.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee selecting Associated Enterprise (AE) as “tested party” justifiable. Accordingly, transfer pricing study conducted by the assessee is duly acceptable.
ITAT Mumbai held that there is a fundamental gap between guarantee and Letter of Comfort. Guarantee is a legally enforceable; however, Letter of Comfort is not. Thus, issuing Letter of Comfort to the Bankers of AE, the assessee did not incurred any cost and hence it does not constitute international transaction under section 92B of the Act
