ITAT Mumbai held that expenses booked upto the date of survey cannot be treated as bogus only for the reason that the expenses were accounted in the books of account subsequent to the date of search.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per first proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b), where date of agreement fixing amount of consideration for transfer of property and ate of registration is not same, the stamp duty value on the date of allotment is to be taken.
In the case of Amrita Jhaveri Vs DCIT, ITAT Mumbai ruled that non-resident individuals are not required to disclose assets held outside India in their Indian income tax returns. The ITAT quashed the re-assessment order based on vague and general reasons, stating that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition made on account of foreign exchange loss unsustainable as the same is duly allowed as deduction by the Tribunal in past
ITAT Mumbai held that foreign travelling expenses in respect of spouses who accompanied on official tour with some of the company employees is allowable expenditure.
ITAT Mumbai held that genuine TDS credit to Rinfra cannot be denied merely because credit of TDS didn’t reflected in Form 26AS as on account of transfer of business, Adani Electricity Mumbai Ltd. (AEML) transferred the income and TDS credit to Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. (Rinfra).
ITAT Mumbai’s recent decision in Anilkumar Champalal Jain Vs. ITO, where assessee’s lack of active engagement with tax authorities led to additional costs. Explore importance of taking tax obligations seriously and potential consequences of negligence.
ITAT Mumbai held that deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act duly available on interest income earned from FDs and RDs invested with cooperative bank.
ITAT Mumbai held that denial of exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act justified as assessee has been found to be not ‘existing’ solely for the purposes of education.
ITAT Mumbai held that it is settled legal position that when income is estimated, then there can be no question of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
