Read about dismissal of an appeal by ITAT Mumbai in case of BLPL Singapore Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT. Sssessee’s appeal against penalty order under Section 270A for non-disclosure of interest income was dismissed.
ITAT Mumbai held that order passed without considering the documents and without examining the correct residential status of the assessee is liable to be restore back for de novo adjudication.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act cannot exceed the amount of exempt income. Hence, AO directed to restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income earned.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit sustained as identity and creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transaction not proved.
ITAT Mumbai held that no penalty leviable on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act when disallowance has been made on estimate basis and return of income was filed prior to insertion of section 14A of the Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that deduction under section 80P(2)(d) is allowable on the entire interest income received by the assessee from the Co-operative bank which includes the amount credited to the balance sheet.
ITAT Mumbai held that when appellant objects to the adoption of stamp duty value in terms of section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act as full value of consideration, AO is under obligation to refer the matter to the valuation officer under section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that reassessment proceedings u/s 148 within limitation period specified under section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act is valid and sustainable in law.
Detailed analysis of recent ITAT Mumbai case, Narayan Devarajan Iyengar Vs ITO, where question of taxability of rent for alternative accommodation and hardship allowance was deliberated.
On appeal, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee could deviate from the earlier selected Most Appropriate Method if the new method was more in line with the applicable provisions.
