ITAT Mumbai held that as entire reasons for reopening were recorded by incorrect assumption of facts, accordingly, reopening was invalid and bad-in-law. Hence, subsequent invocation of revisional jurisdictional under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is untenable in law.
Panexcell Clinical Lab Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT find that the assessee is in the business of drug analysis, clinical trials, and other research activities and as part of the said business, the assessee does lab study of various drugs before their launch in the market. As per the assessee, for the purpose […]
ITAT Mumbai held that distribution of samples of infant milk substitutes, feeding bottles and infant foods is prohibited under section 4 of Infant Milk Substitutes, Feeding Bottles and Infant Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1992. Accordingly, the same is not allowable as business expenditure.
ITAT held that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on Bogus purchase addition cannot be levied where addition was made on estimated basis.
ITAT Mumbai held that rental income from giving out commercial properties for compensation as per Memorandum of Association (MOA) is to be treated as ‘business income’ and not as ‘income from house property’.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee going through resolution process has failed to comply with various notices issued by lower authorities. Accordingly, it is directed to give one last opportunity to present their case before AO. Assessee is also directed to pay the cost for being delinquent before lower authorities.
ITAT Mumbai held that deposit of employee’s contribution to provident fund after the due date prescribed under the relevant statue is not allowable as deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that as and when the CPC has erred while processing the return of an assessee which causes tax liability on an assessee, then lawfully the appellate authorities should not cite procedure as a tool/ruse to deny the just claim of an assessee.
ITAT Mumbai held that deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act duly available as nexus between sale of gold jewellery and purchase of flat duly established.
ITAT Mumbai held that assessee furnished the return of income and audit report only after issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act not leviable as failure was due to ignorance and misguidance.
