https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286521 ITAT Mumbai ruled on multiple issues for assessment year 2006-07. Section 14A read with Rule 8D was held inapplicable as it applied from 2008-09 onwards, following Bombay HC precedent in Godrej Boyce case. Matter remanded to AO for fresh examination on reasonable basis. Property tax reimbursement issue restored to AO for verification against previous years' payments. Advertisement expenditure allowed as revenue expenditure based on prior ITAT and Bombay HC decisions in assessee's own case. Commission taxation timing upheld following Star India case precedent. Depreciation at 60% on computer peripherals allowed based on established judicial precedents. Transfer pricing adjustment rejected as TPO found no arm's length price adjustment required. en-us Fri, 01 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Jul 2025 10:37:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286521 ITAT Mumbai ruled on multiple issues for assessment year 2006-07. Section 14A read with Rule 8D was held inapplicable as it applied from 2008-09 onwards, following Bombay HC precedent in Godrej Boyce case. Matter remanded to AO for fresh examination on reasonable basis. Property tax reimbursement issue restored to AO for verification against previous years' payments. Advertisement expenditure allowed as revenue expenditure based on prior ITAT and Bombay HC decisions in assessee's own case. Commission taxation timing upheld following Star India case precedent. Depreciation at 60% on computer peripherals allowed based on established judicial precedents. Transfer pricing adjustment rejected as TPO found no arm's length price adjustment required. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 01 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286521