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.
The issues raised were in relation to the non-deduction of TDS for payment of professional services and the disallowance of Employees Contribution to PF&ESIC.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that an assessment order against a non-existent entity (Pipal Research Analytics) is invalid. Insight into Crisil Ltd vs ACIT case.
Analysis of ITAT Mumbai’s decision in Sanjay V. Kothari Vs ITO, focusing on the addition of bank deposits. The case involves A.Y. 2006-07 assessment.
ITAT Mumbai rules on V.K. Patel Securities Pvt Ltd appeal against defective notice by CPC under section 44AB of Income Tax Act. Details on the verdict
ITAT Mumbai imposes Rs. 10,000 cost on Hunt International Investments LLC for non-response to notices under section 142(1). Details on the case inside.
ITAT Mumbai sets aside CIT(A) order in Vimal Kishor Shah vs ITO case, ruling purchases reflected in books can’t be treated as unexplained investment.
ITAT Mumbai’s order on Ayyappa Seva Samgham Bombay Vs CIT(A). Insight into the ruling on Corpus Donations, depreciation claims, & Section 11 of the Act.
