ITAT Mumbai held that interest paid on loan from group entities are in the nature of reimbursement and therefore not liable for deduction of TDS. Therefore, addition made by AO is directed to be deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that the deeming fiction of section 50C Income Tax Act cannot be extended while working out the written down value (WDV) for the purpose of claiming deprecation on the block of the asset. Thus, disallowance made is liable to be deleted.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance of short term capital loss not justified since there is no evidence on record based on which genuineness of transactions can be doubted. Hence, held that conclusion drawn by AO is wholly irrational and unsustainable.
ITAT Mumbai held that levy of interest under section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act for lower deduction of TDS not justified since the lower deduction in earlier months were due to bonafide reasons and the same was adjusted in later months.
ITAT Mumbai held that cash deposits were evidently business receipts, in absence of any other evidence of any other undisclosed source of income, the same cannot be considered as unexplained cash credit. Accordingly, addition under section 68 liable to be set aside.
ITAT Mumbai held that addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act made towards penny stock deleted since assessee duly discharged the onus cast upon him and there is no adverse order/penalty order against the Assessee.
ITAT Mumbai rules no addition can be made for differences between GST returns and ITR if reconciled. Assessee followed project completion method for accounting.
Manish Manohardas Asrani Vs ITO Int Tax Ward (ITAT Mumbai) The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, ruled in favor of the assessee, Manish Manohardas Asrani, quashing a penalty of ₹44,90,048 levied under Section 270A(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal held that the penalty notice lacked specificity regarding the charge—whether it pertained […]
ITAT Mumbai upholds deletion of additions u/s 68 for trading in penny stocks. Assessee provided valid evidence, and AO failed to counter claims with proof.
ITAT Mumbai held that Goods and Services Tax (GST) amount while computing presumptive income under section 44B of the Income Tax Act cannot be included. Thus, issue decided in favour of assessee.
