ITAT Mumbai held that interest income earned by co-operative society on its investment held with the co-operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai held that Industrial Promotion Subsidy received under Package Incentive Scheme 2007 declared by the Government of Maharashtra is capital receipt and hence not taxable.
ITAT Mumbai held that Executive search fee is not ‘fee for technical services’ under Article 12(5)(a) as well as 12(5)(b) of the India Netherlands Tax Treaty.
ITAT Mumbai held that bitumen, bitumen emulsion, cut back bitumen, modified bitumen produced by the assessee certainly fall in the category of “mineral oil” for the purpose of section 80IB(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
ITAT Mumbai held that set-off of losses when there is a change in shareholding involves interpretation of various provisions and laws and hence it is not a mistake apparent from record. Accordingly, rectification power under section 154 cannot be invoked.
Held that the disallowance of employees contribution to Provident Fund paid before filing income tax return u/s 139(1), based on the statement made in the Tax Audit Report is not permissible u/s. 143(1)(a) as did not fall within the ambit of prima-facie adjustments.
Nirmala Subramanian Vs CIT (A) (ITAT Mumbai) The short question in this appeal is whether the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54 of the Act or not and what is the date of acquisition of new residential house for the purpose of deduction under Section 54 of the Act. Provision of Section 54 […]
ITAT Mumbai held that payments under the BBCD arrangements were made with specific regulatory approval prescribed by the RBI hence that approval can also be viewed in support of the transaction price as an arm’s length price.
ITAT Mumbai held that income from shareholders account is to be taxed as a part of life insurance business as assessee is carrying on only life insurance business.
In the case of JCIT v. Rahul Rajnikant Parikh, ITAT Mumbai held that interest income need not be assessed when assessee is a Non-resident.
