ITAT Mumbai held that expenditure claimed by the assessee relating to earning of only exempt income is not allowable as deduction. Accordingly, the whole expenditure incurred for earing exempt income cannot be allowed to carryforward.
ITAT Mumbai held that since the impugned MTM loss was duly reversed in the subsequent year and offered to tax, revisionary proceedings invoked under section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained as there is no prejudice to the revenue.
ITAT Mumbai held that services provided by Indian Company to company registered in Isle of Man (i.e. non-resident company) under Canvasser Agent Agreement, on principal-to-principal basis not taxable in India.
ITAT Mumbai held that cash sales accepted and then deposit of said cash in bank account cannot be treated as deposits made out of any undisclosed income. Accordingly, addition under section 68 unsustainable.
Read the analysis of the Tata Aig vs CIT case where ITAT Mumbai discusses revisionary powers under Section 263 and assessment errors.
ITAT held that entries in the books of accounts do not dictate tax treatment. As long as expenses were allowable under relevant sections of Income Tax Act, appellant was entitled to claim them.
ITAT held that in view of non-cooperation on the part of the assessee before lower authorities for verification of it’s own documents/ claims cost of Rs. 20,000 imposed on the assessee to be deposited into Prime Minister Relief Fund.
ITAT Mumbai held that shares held as investment is taxable under capital gain. The same cannot be treated as business income on the ground that the assessee was participating in the business of JMMSSPL and had had transferred the controlling/business interest.
ITAT Mumbai held that tax authorities cannot assessee share premium amount under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, addition made u/s 68 is liable to be deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that as per section 92CA(3) TPO order should be passed before 60 days prior to the date prescribed u/s 153 of the Act. Accordingly, in present case, TPO order passed on 30/01/2015 instead of 29/01/2015 is non-est and liable to be quashed as being barred by limitation.
