ITAT Mumbai held that Corporate Guarantee facility provided to overseas AE by the assessee is an international transaction and hence addition towards Arm’s Length Guarantee Fee confirmed.
ITAT Mumbai allows the claim of deduction u/s. 80JJAA for the assessment year 2020-21, as the taxpayer had filed the original return of income on time. The claim was initially denied due to an error in categorizing the revised return as an original return.
Read the detailed analysis of ITAT Mumbai’s decision on DCIT Vs ICICI Bank Ltd., addressing disallowance of exempt income, inordinate delay, and the crucial role of interest-free funds.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessing officer passed final assessment order u/s 144C(13) r.w.s 143(3) without passing a draft assessment order u/s 144C(1), said order being violative of provisions of Sec. 144C(1) deserved to be set aside.
ITAT Mumbai held that where assessee company was amalgamated with another company and thereby lost its existence, assessment order passed subsequently in name of said non-existing entity, would be without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.
ITAT Mumbai held that twin conditions as set out in section 11(4A) of the Income Tax Act are satisfied and income accrued from Pharmacy store is incidental to the dominant object of running Hospital. Hence, addition towards profits earned from Pharmacy Store not taxable.
In the case of Brightstar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, the ITAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, declaring the final assessment order void due to failure to comply with mandatory procedure u/s 144C of the Income Tax Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai dismisses the Revenue’s appeal and allows bad debts declared as Non Performing Assets (NPS) before 01.04.2006 as a deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act for Abhyudaya Co-op Bank Limited for AY 2012-13.
ITAT Mumbai held that TPO rightly treated interest receivables as a loan outstanding given by assessee to its Associated Enterprises (AE) and charging interest on the same.
ITAT Mumbai held that capital gain tax inadvertently paid by the wife needs to be refunded with interest and the same needs to be recovered from the assessee as the same transaction cannot be charged to tax twice.
