ITAT Mumbai held that as Form No. 67 has been filed by the Appellant before the processing the return of income under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, foreign tax credit is duly eligible.
Delve into the Prem Naraindas Raney Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) case to understand the complexities surrounding the set-off of short-term capital loss against gains under section 70 and 71 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In a significant ruling, ITAT directs the AO to share crucial information about 32,855 beneficiaries involved in accommodation entry schemes, uncovering a massive money laundering operation
D D & Co. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT Mumbai held that for claiming deduction u/s. 57 of the Income Tax Act, it is important to establish that the expenditure is laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. Accordingly, matter remanded to consider the movement in […]
Analysis of the ITAT Mumbai ruling in FDC Limited Vs PCIT. Find out why ITAT quashed the revision order concerning Form 3CM, Form 3CL, and deductions under section 35(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
An in-depth analysis of ITAT Mumbai’s landmark decision in the case of ITO vs Kamalesh Mohandas Lakhwani. Explore why mere suspicion isn’t enough for additions under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee claimed benefit u/s 54 on a different document, whereas ultimately the transaction completed on altogether a different set of conditions and property, which is not permissible to claim benefit u/s. 54 of the Act. Accordingly, benefit u/s. 54 denied.
Analyzing ITAT Mumbai’s landmark ruling in the case of ITO Vs Sanjay Mahabir Maheshka that deems income from share sales via Demat account as not Unexplained Income under section 68.
A detailed analysis of ITAT Mumbai ruling in Surti Modh Vanik Jagruti Mandal Vs ITO (E). Learn why ITAT found CIT(E) rejection of the trust unsustainable.
DCIT Vs Milan Kavinchandra Parikh (ITAT Mumbai) Introduction: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai recently delivered a pivotal judgment in the case between the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) and Milan Kavinchandra Parikh. The judgment raises key questions surrounding the jurisdiction of penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This […]
