<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2023 (11) TMI 985 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446094</link>
    <description>ITAT Mumbai-AT decided an appeal involving multiple issues regarding house property income and business expenses. For interest on loans for Surat property purchase, the matter was remanded to AO for fresh adjudication due to insufficient evidence initially provided. Regarding deemed rent on Borivali flat allegedly occupied by employees, the addition was confirmed as assessee failed to prove employee occupation with supporting evidence. Business expenses disallowance was partially allowed, with AO&#039;s action restricted to 20% disallowance considering possible personal use of telephone, mobile, and conveyance expenses. Interest on unsecured loans was disallowed as assessee couldn&#039;t establish nexus between borrowing and income generation from amenity charges and FD interest. Assessee&#039;s consistency argument based on earlier years&#039; acceptance was rejected due to lack of evidence showing proper scrutiny in previous assessments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Nov 2023 06:02:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=732930" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (11) TMI 985 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446094</link>
      <description>ITAT Mumbai-AT decided an appeal involving multiple issues regarding house property income and business expenses. For interest on loans for Surat property purchase, the matter was remanded to AO for fresh adjudication due to insufficient evidence initially provided. Regarding deemed rent on Borivali flat allegedly occupied by employees, the addition was confirmed as assessee failed to prove employee occupation with supporting evidence. Business expenses disallowance was partially allowed, with AO&#039;s action restricted to 20% disallowance considering possible personal use of telephone, mobile, and conveyance expenses. Interest on unsecured loans was disallowed as assessee couldn&#039;t establish nexus between borrowing and income generation from amenity charges and FD interest. Assessee&#039;s consistency argument based on earlier years&#039; acceptance was rejected due to lack of evidence showing proper scrutiny in previous assessments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446094</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>