In the case of Gulu Hassanand Raney vs. Asst. Director of I.T. Bangalore-CPC (ITAT Mumbai), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeal regarding the extension of the due date for filing the income tax return. The appeal raised questions about whether the extended due date for tax audit cases could be applied to an assessee liable for audit under a different law. Read the full order and analysis here.
ITAT Mumbai held that determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of intra group services at Rs. Nil is not justified as the assessee has maintained a reasonably sound documentation of intra group services.
ITAT Mumbai held that land was transferred to the builder/ developer at the time of execution of Development Agreement i.e. 18/01/2008 and accordingly, the same cannot be taxed in the year of agreement of sale i.e. A.Y. 2010-2011.
ITAT Mumbai held that TPO was correct in concluding that the rate at which loan is taken by the Appellant cannot be taken as internal CUP to benchmark the loan given by the Appellant to its AE as there is a difference in credit rating of the Appellant and its AE.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of delayed payment of employee’s contribution to PF and ESIC in terms of section 36(1)(va) is incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return. Accordingly, adjustment is permissible under the scope of section 143(1).
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Mumbai classifies investment in ULIP Policy as ‘Capital Asset’, with accretion on surrender taxable under ‘Income from Capital Gains’ and not ‘Income from Other Sources’.
Explore the ITAT Mumbai decision in the case of Maneken Keshvalla Patel Vs NFAC, where the appeal was reinstated despite discrepancies in PAN cited by the Assessee and Assessing Officer. Uncover the intricate details of the case.
ITAT held that dividend declared, distributed or paid by a domestic company to non resident shareholder (s) attract additional income tax (tax on distributed profits) referred to in section 115-O of the Act, such additional income tax payable by the domestic company shall be at the rate of mentioned in section 115-O of the Act and not at the rate of tax applicable to the non resident shareholder(s) as specified in the relevant DTAA with reference to such dividend income.
ITAT Mumbai held that the TPO is not correct in arriving at the ALP as NIL on the ground that the need and benefit test is not satisfied by the assessee without giving any contrary findings with regard to the various documents including the TP study submitted by the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty levied for late filing of Profession Tax Return is penal in nature accordingly is not allowable as business expenditure.
