Detailed analysis of ITAT’s decision in Uma Rajendra Agarwal Vs ACIT regarding deletion of adhoc disallowance on electricity expenses.
ITAT Mumbai held that surplus/ income from pension scheme/ business is exempt under section 10(23AAB) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that post amendment to provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act as effective from 1st April 1989, the Act does not require the assessee to establish that the debts have in fact become bad before writing off. Accordingly, addition with regard to disallowance of claim of write off of bad debts duly deleted by CIT(A).
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 69B of the Income Tax Act towards unexplained investment sustained excel sheet and whatsapp chat are incriminating material found and seized during the course of search action.
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(E) failed to examine the aspects as directed by the High Court in the matter of application for registration under section 10(23C)(via). Accordingly, matter restored back to CIT(E).
ITAT Mumbai held that cost reimbursement received towards providing support services is taxable as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) both under Section 9(1) (vii) of the Act as well as Article 12(4) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition towards lower commission charged by Jetair Pvt. Ltd. to Jet Airways (India) Ltd. on account of Online Reservation Commission by applying arm’s length price not sustained as the transaction was neither international transaction nor a specified domestic transaction and hence transfer pricing provisions doesn’t apply.
ITAT Mumbai held that reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act after four years without bringing on record that escapement of income was occurred by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully or truly all the material facts is bad-in-law and liable to be quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that the assessee not entitled to deduction u/s 48(i) of the Act for repayment of the mortgage debt which was incurred subsequent to the acquisition of the property and not for the purpose of acquisition.
ITAT Mumbai held that AO is bound to dispose of the objections filed by the assessee against reopening and give at least four weeks time, from the date of rejection of objection, to assessee to seek any legal remedy. In absence of the same, reopening of assessment is not legally sustainable.
