Search
Advanced Search Search with field filters
/adv
Navigation
Home Go to homepage
/home
Direct Tax Income Tax resources
GST GST Acts, Rules & Case Laws
Company Law Companies Act & SEBI
Due Date Tracker Statutory compliance deadlines
/due
Due Date Calendar Calendar view of compliance deadlines
Daily Digest Today's tax updates and articles
/digest
Landmark Rulings

ITAT Mumbai — Direct Tax

2,432 rulings

  1. ITAT Mumbai · 08 Jan 2021
    If a unit does not qualify for deduction u/s 35AD but fulfills the criteria for being a specified business u/s 35AD(8)(c), then the loss of any specified business can be set-off against the profits of unit eligible for deduction u/s 35AD.

    Sarovar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 24973 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 35AD

  2. ITAT Mumbai · 08 Jan 2021
    Since assessee did not know the payee or liability, provisions of Sec. 40(a)(ia) do no apply.

    DCIT Vs M/s Sonata Information Technology Ltd.

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 24972 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  3. ITAT Mumbai · 08 Jan 2021
    Loss on account of error trade conducted on behalf of the clients is to be viewed as an integral part of carrying on share broking business and accepted as business loss, not speculation loss.

    CLSA India Private Limited Vs ACIT

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 24971 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  4. ITAT Mumbai · 06 Jan 2021
    Assets u/s 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, does not cover offshore assets of an offshore trust. Therefore, assessee is not liable for wealth-tax.

    Yashovardhan Birla Vs Dy. Commissioner of Wealth Tax

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 24958 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  5. ITAT Mumbai · 06 Jan 2021
    During pendency of assessment on remand, assuming that loss was incorrectly determined for AY 2014-15 is premature and uncalled for.

    Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 24956 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 240

  6. ITAT Mumbai · 05 Jan 2021
    Distribution rights granted by assessee to its distribution agent is only a commercial right / Broad Cast reproduction right and not copyright and consequently considertation received by the assessee for the same cannot be treated as royalty or fees for included services under Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA

    M/s.NGC Network Asia LLC Vs Dy. Director of Income Tax (International Tax)

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 24951 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  7. ITAT Mumbai · 30 Dec 2020
    Mr. Cyrus Mistry's action of supplying documents to the income tax department, without any authorization of the company even though which were apparently obtained by him in the fiduciary capacity, almost immediately after being removed as Chairman of the Tata Sons, cannot be said to be influenced by call of a pure conscious and high ground of morality.

    Sir Dorabji Tata Trust Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24914 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  8. ITAT Mumbai · 30 Dec 2020
    The receipt of money of Rs 1.20 crores is a movable asset for which no registration is warranted. Even oral gift is permissible and it need not be deduced into writing especially when it is done amongst close family members as there are least chances to suspect the same.

    Shri Mahesh Arun Gawli Vs ACIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24913 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  9. ITAT Mumbai · 28 Dec 2020
    Even if the investments were violative of Sec.11(5), exemption u/s 11 could be denied only with respect to income arising therefrom i.e. dividend, which was anyway exempt u/s 10(34), and hence it was completely tax neutral exercise not causing any prejudice to the Revenue.

    Sir Dorabji Tata Trust Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24897 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  10. ITAT Mumbai · 24 Dec 2020
    When the order passed under section 263 of the Act has lost its existence by virtue of the order of the Tribunal, all proceedings consequent to the order passed under section 263 of the Act would automatically become invalid.

    Pfizer Ltd. Vs ACIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24879 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  11. ITAT Mumbai · 24 Dec 2020
    It is settled law that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchase cannot be done. The rationale being no sales is possible without actual purchases.

    Kuldeep Glass and Aluminium Vs Income Tax Officer

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24877 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  12. ITAT Mumbai · 23 Dec 2020
    Share application as transferred/ assigned would constitute capital asset u/s 2(14).

    DCIT Vs M/s Morarjee Realities Ltd.

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24866 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  13. ITAT Mumbai · 23 Dec 2020
    The AO's refusal to grant foreign tax credit under article 23(2) of India Japan DTAA on the ground that the assessee's income (legal fees) was not taxable in Japan under Article 14 (Independent Personal Services) & that the taxes were wrongly withheld in Japan is not justified. The income could have been taxed under Article 12 (Fees for Technical Services). Even otherwise, one has to take a judicious call as to whether the view adopted by the source jurisdiction of taxing the income is a reasonable and bonafide view, which may or may not be the same as the legal position in the residence jurisdiction. The view of the treaty partner should be adopted unless it is wholly unreasonable or manifestly erroneous

    Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A Shroff & Co vs. ACIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24862 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  14. ITAT Mumbai · 23 Dec 2020
    (i) The fact that profits of foreign branches of a resident are taxed outside India under tax treaties does not imply that the said income is not taxable in India. The entire global income has to be taxed in India. The assesseee is entitled to credit for taxes paid abroad, as admissible under the treaty or the domestic law. (ii) S. 115JB applies to banking companies after the 2012 amendment. Even profits of foreign branches which are taxed under the tax treaties are also liable for MAT. (iii) The argument that S. 90 overrides S. 115JB and so the incomes taxed abroad should be excluded from taxation of book profits u/s 115 JB is not correct. Treaty protection come normally into play for taxation of a non-resident in India, i.e. source country taxation, and not for taxation of a resident in whose hands global income is to be taxed anyway. All that one gets in the residence jurisdiction, by the virtue of tax treaties, is tax credits for the taxes paid abroad.

    Bank of India vs. ACIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24861 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  15. ITAT Mumbai · 23 Dec 2020
    (i) The fact that profits of foreign branches of a resident are taxed outside India under tax treaties does not imply that the said income is not taxable in India. The entire global income has to be taxed in India. The assesseee is entitled to credit for taxes paid abroad, as admissible under the treaty or the domestic law. (ii) S. 115JB applies to banking companies after the 2012 amendment. Even profits of foreign branches which are taxed under the tax treaties are also liable for MAT. (iii) The argument that S. 90 overrides S. 115JB and so the incomes taxed abroad should be excluded from taxation of book profits u/s 115 JB is not correct. Treaty protection come normally into play for taxation of a non-resident in India, i.e. source country taxation, and not for taxation of a resident in whose hands global income is to be taxed anyway. All that one gets in the residence jurisdiction, by the virtue of tax treaties, is tax credits for the taxes paid abroad.

    Bank of India vs. ACIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24860 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  16. ITAT Mumbai · 21 Dec 2020
    Given the considerate approach adopted by the field authorities, there is no need to pass a stay order in this case.

    Grasim Industries Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24846 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  17. ITAT Mumbai · 18 Dec 2020
    The exclusion clause, under article 12(4), covers only payments to to any individual for independent personal services referred to in article 14.

    Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A Shroff & Co Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24831 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  18. ITAT Mumbai · 18 Dec 2020
    As per amended provisions of section 115BBE(2) made by Finance Act, 2016, set off of any loss against deemed income under sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D could not be applied retrospectively.

    M/s. Innovative Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24827 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 115BBE

  19. ITAT Mumbai · 18 Dec 2020
    The deduction of interest is allowable irrespective of whether the property under question is residential or commercial.

    M/s. Indraprastha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24826 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 24(b)

  20. ITAT Mumbai · 18 Dec 2020
    Section 40(a)(i) is a restriction on deductibility of expenses u/s 30 to 38. If the related expenditure is not claimed as a deduction u/s 30 to 38, this disallowance cannot be pressed into service at all. As the assessee is an advertisement agency and advertisements are placed by the assessee on behalf of its clients, there is ordinarily no occasion to claim the costs of advertisements as deduction in computation of its business income. The revenues, in the case of advertisement agencies, consist of only the commission received in respect of the advertisements so placed

    Interactive Avenues Private Limited vs. DCIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24822 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.


An unhandled error has occurred. Reload ×

Rejoining the server...

Rejoin failed... trying again in seconds.

Failed to rejoin.
Please retry or reload the page.

The session has been paused by the server.

Failed to resume the session.
Please retry or reload the page.