ITAT Mumbai quashes PCIT order against Masani Engineering Co. Pvt Ltd . Explore detailed analysis of why allegations of understated revenue in P&L were baseless.
Assessee argued that since they were subject to audit under the Maharashtra State Co-Operative Act, their due date under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act was extended to October 31, 2018. Thus, they filed their ITR well within the time limit.
ITAT Mumbai held that change of opinion is not permissible under the garb of reopening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that as Form No. 67 has been filed by the Appellant before the processing the return of income under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, foreign tax credit is duly eligible.
Delve into the Prem Naraindas Raney Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) case to understand the complexities surrounding the set-off of short-term capital loss against gains under section 70 and 71 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In a significant ruling, ITAT directs the AO to share crucial information about 32,855 beneficiaries involved in accommodation entry schemes, uncovering a massive money laundering operation
D D & Co. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT Mumbai held that for claiming deduction u/s. 57 of the Income Tax Act, it is important to establish that the expenditure is laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income. Accordingly, matter remanded to consider the movement in […]
Analysis of the ITAT Mumbai ruling in FDC Limited Vs PCIT. Find out why ITAT quashed the revision order concerning Form 3CM, Form 3CL, and deductions under section 35(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
An in-depth analysis of ITAT Mumbai’s landmark decision in the case of ITO vs Kamalesh Mohandas Lakhwani. Explore why mere suspicion isn’t enough for additions under Section 69B of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee claimed benefit u/s 54 on a different document, whereas ultimately the transaction completed on altogether a different set of conditions and property, which is not permissible to claim benefit u/s. 54 of the Act. Accordingly, benefit u/s. 54 denied.
