https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462320 ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee on multiple issues. The tribunal held that service centre income should be classified as business income rather than house property income, consistent with prior years. Interest expenses under section 24(b) were allowed based on area allocation for letting purposes, as the AO failed to prove any deficiency in allocation. Disallowance under section 14A was rejected since no exempt income was earned during the year. Sale promotion expenses for real estate project branding were allowed under section 37, as the AO could not disprove the business purpose. All appeals by revenue were dismissed. en-us Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jun 2025 18:57:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462320 ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee on multiple issues. The tribunal held that service centre income should be classified as business income rather than house property income, consistent with prior years. Interest expenses under section 24(b) were allowed based on area allocation for letting purposes, as the AO failed to prove any deficiency in allocation. Disallowance under section 14A was rejected since no exempt income was earned during the year. Sale promotion expenses for real estate project branding were allowed under section 37, as the AO could not disprove the business purpose. All appeals by revenue were dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462320