<?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>2025 (1) TMI 496 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764434</link>
    <description>The ITAT Mumbai held that additions made under section 153A assessment were invalid due to absence of incriminating material from search and seizure operations. Following Supreme Court precedent in Abhisar Buildwell case, disallowances for assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19 were deleted. Regarding partner remuneration, the tribunal ruled that payment to a partner who assisted with accounts maintenance was allowable business expenditure under section 37, rejecting the Assessing Officer&#039;s disallowance. The partner&#039;s physical presence was established through recorded statements, and remuneration was properly taxed in partner&#039;s hands under section 28(v). Decision favored the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2025 12:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=787789" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 496 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764434</link>
      <description>The ITAT Mumbai held that additions made under section 153A assessment were invalid due to absence of incriminating material from search and seizure operations. Following Supreme Court precedent in Abhisar Buildwell case, disallowances for assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19 were deleted. Regarding partner remuneration, the tribunal ruled that payment to a partner who assisted with accounts maintenance was allowable business expenditure under section 37, rejecting the Assessing Officer&#039;s disallowance. The partner&#039;s physical presence was established through recorded statements, and remuneration was properly taxed in partner&#039;s hands under section 28(v). Decision favored the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764434</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>