ITAT Mumbai held that deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act cannot be denied by invoking another sub-section of 80P. Accordingly, disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on information received by AO from DDIT (investigation) justified subject to fulfilment of conditions as envisaged u/s 147/148.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance on account of delayed payments of PF and ESI contribution unjustified as payment made well before the due date of filing of income tax return u/s. 139(1).
ITAT Mumbai held that invocation of provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act without satisfying the twin condition i.e. erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue not satisfied. Hence, order passed u/s 263 set aside.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained expenditure merely on the basis of suspicion without any other support is unsustainable in law.
Review of ITAT Mumbai’s ruling in Kamlesh Vasant Nerkar Vs CIT, emphasizing the need for AO to recognize income that has been adequately explained by the taxpayer.
ITAT Mumbai held that interest paid on housing loan borrowed for purchase of flat is not allowable as cost of acquisition.
ITAT Mumbai held that revisionary powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act rightly invoked by PCIT as order of assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards unexplained and undisclosed income sustained as assessee itself claim payment of cash in the civil suit and failed to explain the source of the cash payment.
In present facts of the case, it was observed by the Tribunal that only Assessee could sign Form number 35A prescribed under Income Tax (Dispute Resolution Panel) Rules, 2009.
