ITAT Mumbai held that initiated revision jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act on mere conjectures, suspicions and surmises, is not permissible in law.
ITAT Mumbai held that a start-up company incurring cost for branding of the company and other relevant expenditure which creates popularity which helps promotion of contents at the time of its product launch is allowable expenditure.
Where notices were issued to assessee under Section 263 after his death notice could not have been validly served upon assessee, therefore, said notices are invalid and liable to quash. Assessment order framed under dead person is also liable to be quashed.
ITAT Mumbai held that entire interest paid on loan for acquiring commercial property is allowable as deduction. Restriction as provided in 2nd proviso to section 24(b) is not applicable. Hence, the amount of loss under the head ‘income from house property’, which is not set off against the income under the other head of income be allowed to be carried forward as per provisions of section 71B of the Act.
Allotment letter by builder is date of acquisition of property as period of holding for determining whether capital asset is a long-term or a short-term
Ashok Madhav Rao Vs ADIT (ITAT Mumbai) In this case only reason why the foreign tax credit was denied to the assessee is that the assessee submitted the certificate of his employer and without submitting any detail of the payment of taxes in Netherlands. Now, we find that claim of the assessee is now supported […]
ITAT Mumbai held that security charges involve supply of manpower only and the same does not involve carrying on of any work. Accordingly, provisions of section 194C are not attracted for expenses claimed as security charges. Hence, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) unjustified.
Assessee failed to establish difference amount specified in Form 26AS and returns despite several opportunities – ITAT upheld addition
ITAT Mumbai held that revisionary power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is not invocable for taking second opinion by Pr. CIT as the facts were already examined by AO.
ITAT Mumbai held that mere delay in filing of Form No. 67 cannot preclude the assessee from claiming the benefit of foreign tax credit in respect of tax paid outside India.
