DCIT vs. Dhani Services Ltd.: ITAT Mumbai upholds the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, along with ESOP expenditure.
DDIT vs. Linklaters (ITAT Mumbai): In cases where certain income qualifies for deduction, interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax Act is not applicable.
Read the full text of the ITAT Mumbai order in Kailash Judhistir Sahu vs. CIT, where the addition from 12.5% to 6% for inability to produce parties of bogus purchases is restricted.
ITAT Mumbai’s recent decision on advance income tax treatment. Explore the case between ITO and Nayak Chaudhari Construction Pvt. Ltd. and its implications.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of net prior period expenditure debited under the head ‘prior period expenses’ unsustainable as expenditure duly allowed in earlier years by the Tribunal.
In the case of Bombay Samachar Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT, ITAT Mumbai rules that valuation of sale consideration must involve a Valuation Officer as per Section 50C of the Income Tax Act.
Discover the case of Drupad Menda vs PCIT, where the revision order under Section 263 for AY 2018-19 is challenged. Keyman Insurance Policy deductions in question.
Explore Almech Enterprises Vs. ACIT case. Learn why a cash shortfall in a survey compared to books doesn’t warrant an addition under section 69C of the Income Tax Act.
Held that the entries in the books of account of amalgamating companies prior to amalgamation cannot be part of the additions made under section 153A in the hands of the assessee (i.e. amalgamated company). Accordingly, additions deleted.
A recent ITAT Mumbai ruling in Mehboob Amirali Kamdar vs. ITO demonstrates that the absence of actual money receipt and an accounting mistake can prevent a Section 68 addition.
