ITAT Mumbai held that twin conditions as set out in section 11(4A) of the Income Tax Act are satisfied and income accrued from Pharmacy store is incidental to the dominant object of running Hospital. Hence, addition towards profits earned from Pharmacy Store not taxable.
In the case of Brightstar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, the ITAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, declaring the final assessment order void due to failure to comply with mandatory procedure u/s 144C of the Income Tax Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai dismisses the Revenue’s appeal and allows bad debts declared as Non Performing Assets (NPS) before 01.04.2006 as a deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act for Abhyudaya Co-op Bank Limited for AY 2012-13.
ITAT Mumbai held that TPO rightly treated interest receivables as a loan outstanding given by assessee to its Associated Enterprises (AE) and charging interest on the same.
ITAT Mumbai held that capital gain tax inadvertently paid by the wife needs to be refunded with interest and the same needs to be recovered from the assessee as the same transaction cannot be charged to tax twice.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 272A(1)(c) not warranted as reasonable cause shown for delay in providing the details by the assessee and later in the end, the assessee had shared all the relevant details.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte due to the non-appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, de novo adjudication ordered as CIT(A) didn’t rendered any finding on merits.
ITAT Mumbai held that adjustment of notional interest for extended credit period to the associated enterprises unsustainable as assessee extended credit period to its non-associated enterprises without charging any interest.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act towards share application money unsustainable since they are not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search.
ITAT Mumbai held that the issue of allowance of sales promotion expenses (including freebies) in the hands of Appellant was debatable and it cannot be said that allowance of deduction of sales promotion expenses by AO resulting in a mistake apparent on record. Thus, in absence of mistake apparent on record, order passed u/s 154 liable to be quashed.
