A detailed analysis of the decision made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai in the case of Ambuja Cements Limited Vs ACIT. The Tribunal allowed rectification of a mistake apparent from the record under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
Dive into the Ernst & Young Merchant Vs ACIT case, where ITAT Mumbai assessed an error in the tax auditor’s report concerning provident fund contributions, and understand its implications on taxation law.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of Director’s education expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act sustained as assessee failed to prove such expenditure had direct relationship with the business activity. Accordingly, assessee failed to prove that expenditure were incurred wholly and exclusively for business.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that no legal suit or proceeding can continue against a corporate debtor until the conclusion of proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016.
Exploring recent decision of ITAT Mumbai in Rasik Nemchand Pethad Vs DCIT where it was determined that Section 271B penalty doesn’t apply when there’s reasonable cause for failure to comply with provisions.
ITAT Mumbai held that as conditions in second proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) satisfied, stamp duty as on the date of agreement would be compared with agreement value. Accordingly, since the stamp duty value is less than the agreement value, addition unsustainable.
ITAT Mumbai held that the income portion of the on-money is assessable in the year in which the sale of concerned flat is declared by the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that the Revenue has failed to prove with any cogent evidence on record that the assessee was involved in converting his unaccounted money into long-term capital gains and short-term capital gains by conniving with any entry operator/exit provider. Accordingly, addition u/s 68 merely on the basis of suspicion unsustainable.
ITAT Mumbai held that as service tax doesn’t partake the character of income, the same cannot be included in the gross receipt of the assessee for the purpose of computing the presumptive taxation u/s 44AD of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that once the transaction is duly recorded in the books of accounts and due explanation with regard to source of loan transaction is provided, addition u/s 69A towards unexplained money unsustainable.
