Read about the ITAT Mumbai’s decision in the case of Sanghamitra Prakash Patel vs. ITO where a penalty was imposed on the assessee for failure to appear before the CIT(A).
ITAT Mumbai held that receipts taxable under Fees for Technical/ Included Services (FTS/FIS) as assessee failed to prove that it is actual reimbursement as there is no basis of allocation or actual cost incurred for affiliates.
ITAT Mumbai held that amount received by the appellant from VMI in terms of the Settlement Agreement was consideration for transfer of goodwill and the same is taxable under Capital Gains and cannot be treated as business income.
ITAT Mumbai held that expenditure towards brand reminder, customer gifts, purchase of medical books and journals is not allowable expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act as such expenses are in the nature of free bees and prohibited.
ITAT Mumbai held that adjustment on account of examination of the arm’s-length price of the specified domestic transactions is not valid because of deletion of the provisions of Section 92BA (1) of the Act with effect from 1/4/2017. Provisions of Section 40A (2) of the act governs the allowability of those expenditure.
ITAT Mumbai held that provisions of section 13(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act does not authorise the Revenue to compute the notional interest. Accordingly, addition of notional interest deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that Retail Sale Price Method (RPM) is the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transaction of ‘import of men’s wear for resale’ between Celio Future Fashion Pvt. Ltd. and its associated enterprises.
ITAT Mumbai held that TP adjustment in respect of international transaction of reimbursement of Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) Expenses deleted as Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of ESOP expenses cannot be taken as NIL.
ITAT Mumbai held that with regard to addition under section 69C of the Income Tax Act it is directed to set the matter back to AO to verify whether the source for the additions made in the hands of the assessee is explained through the settlement made before the settlement commission.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as non-declaration of interest on income tax refund was bona fide and cannot be said to be underreporting of income.
