ITAT Mumbai held that payments/compensation paid by developer is in the nature of hardship allowance / rehabilitation allowance is capital receipt and is not liable to tax.
In the Rajendra G. Parekh vs ITO case, ITAT Mumbai restricts additions to 0.05% of gross total, questioning the handling of bank accounts and involvement in bogus business activities.
In a recent appeal, Halo Technologies challenges the CIT(A)’s order on late fees under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act. ITAT Mumbai directs re-adjudication, citing lack of opportunity for the Assessee to explain the delay. Full text of the ITAT order dated 20.10.2023.
Explore the ITAT Mumbai’s reversal of CIT(A)’s order in Laxman Mahadev Patil Vs ITO case for not passing a merit-based decision. Read the full text and analysis.
Read the detailed analysis of the ITAT Mumbai ruling in Standard Fiscal Markets Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT case. No section 68 addition for conduit entity. Insights on tax implications.
ITAT Mumbai held that reference to TPO in respect of Specified Domestic Transaction (SDT) u/s. 92BA(i) has been omitted from the statue by the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01/04/2017. Hence, entire reference and transfer pricing adjustment is invalid.
ITAT Mumbai held that compensation paid to a real estate developer for closure of agreement is allowable as revenue expenditure when the payment of such compensation is closely related to the business of the assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that the unabsorbed depreciation which is carried forward from earlier years is permitted to be set off against the short term capital gains.
ITAT Mumbai held that were the co-operative society receives/earns the interest on deposits with the co-operative bank is eligible for claim of deduction under Section 80(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit unsustainable as the addition was made by AO on the basis of presumptions and conjectures and without conducting any independent investigation.
