ITAT Mumbai held that composite rental income received by letting out school building with infrastructure and amenities is taxable under the head ‘Income from House Property’ and not under ‘Income from income from other sources’ in view of section 56(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
Explore the Ahmednagar Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT case where the ITAT Mumbai rejected the claim of LTCG under section 10(38) due to the non-submission of documents, subsequently quashing the order.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as present case doesn’t involve invocation of any of the sections i.e. section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D of the Income Tax Act.
A deep dive into ITAT Mumbai’s ruling in I.G. International Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, underscoring the importance of unambiguous notices under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained cash credit unsustainable as cash proceeds already reflected in Profit & Loss account, hence addition u/s 68 will amount to double taxation.
ITAT Mumbai held that deduction of unamortized brokerage expenses claimed through revised return of income is duly allowable.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of interest expenditure paid u/s. 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act on late payment of TDS is penal in nature and not compensatory.
A detailed analysis of the decision made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai in the case of Ambuja Cements Limited Vs ACIT. The Tribunal allowed rectification of a mistake apparent from the record under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
Dive into the Ernst & Young Merchant Vs ACIT case, where ITAT Mumbai assessed an error in the tax auditor’s report concerning provident fund contributions, and understand its implications on taxation law.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of Director’s education expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act sustained as assessee failed to prove such expenditure had direct relationship with the business activity. Accordingly, assessee failed to prove that expenditure were incurred wholly and exclusively for business.
