ITAT Mumbai held that non-receipt of confirmation from the sundry creditors under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act cannot result into addition since parties are identified, transaction of purchase of land is accepted and reason for outstanding amount is explained.
ITAT Mumbai held that the bank guarantee rates cannot be considered for benchmarking corporate guarantee fees, therefore benchmarking of AO and DRP is also incorrect. It depends on creditworthiness of parties and benefit arising out of the same in the hands of the parties to the transaction.
ITAT Mumbai held that activities of import of goods for re-export (i.e. trading activities) falls within the meaning of service defined u/s 2(z) of SEZ Act and accordingly the profits and gains derived from such services rendered from SEZ would be eligible for deduction u/s. 10AA of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai concurred with AO and CIT(A), highlighting that a Board Resolution doesn’t create a liability until implemented. The tribunal emphasized that costs for employee termination and lease termination arise when notice of termination is served.
Read the full text of the ITAT Mumbai order in the case of Nikhil Suryakant Shah vs ITO. The ITAT has deleted the addition for deemed interest on a loan given by the director to the company. Get the analysis and conclusion here.
ITAT Mumbai held that deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act is duly available to co-operative society on the interest income/dividend received/earned from deposits with the co-operative banks.
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee is eligible to claim exemption u/s. 54 of the Income Tax Act as the construction of residential house completed within three years from the relevant date.
ITAT Mumbai held that membership fee expenses have been incurred for acquisition of individual club membership is not allowable as expenditure in terms of provisions of section 37 of the Income Tax Act.ITAT Mumbai held that membership fee expenses have been incurred for acquisition of individual club membership is not allowable as expenditure in terms of provisions of section 37 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition on account of mismatch between the income reported under form number 26AS and the income recorded in the books of accounts unsustainable since the mis-match duly explained.
ITAT Mumbai remanded the matter to jurisdictional AO for de novo adjudication since the assessee was not able to furnish the documents at the time of assessment proceedings and the documents furnished before CIT(A) were not considered/ verified.
