The Tribunal held that rental income earned from immovable property held under trust could not automatically be treated as business income. It ruled that the proviso to Section 2(15) was wrongly invoked where the trust’s dominant object remained charitable.
DCIT-CC-8(4) Vs Offbeat Developers Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai) The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal examined Revenue appeals involving disallowances made on various expenses claimed by a mall developer engaged in leasing property and providing related services, where income was offered under both “Income from House Property” and “Profits and Gains from Business or Profession.” The […]
ITAT Mumbai held that prolonged non-payment of interest and repeated amendments to loan agreements justified benchmarking AE loans at a fixed 6.5% rate instead of floating LIBOR rates. The Tribunal also directed grant of credit for interest income already offered to tax suo motu.
Mumbai ITAT upheld ₹10.76 crore addition after rejecting selective identification of physical shares for capital gains computation. The Tribunal termed the arrangement a “colourable device” to suppress taxable gains.
ITAT Mumbai accepted part of the assessee’s explanation that cash used for credit card payments came from family members. The Tribunal relied on income tax returns, bank statements, and affidavits while granting partial relief.
Mumbai ITAT restored appeals dismissed for 179-day delay after observing that the assessee had relied bona fide on his Chartered Accountant. The Tribunal granted another opportunity in the interest of justice and fair play.
The ITAT restored the ₹1.36 crore stock valuation addition to the AO after finding that the assessee’s Weighted Average Cost method under AS-2 and ICDS-II was never properly examined. The Tribunal directed fresh verification of inventory valuation records.
Mumbai ITAT held that reassessment under Section 147 cannot be initiated merely by reviewing records already examined during original scrutiny. Absence of fresh tangible material made the reopening legally invalid.
The Mumbai ITAT held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to properly verify bank statements, credit card records, and company ledger accounts before making the addition under Section 68. The matter was restored for fresh examination and reconciliation of records.
The ITAT held that old unsecured loan balances carried forward from earlier years cannot automatically be treated as unexplained cash credits in a subsequent year.
