https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462354 ITAT Mumbai upheld CIT(A)'s decision treating service centre income as business income rather than house property income, applying consistency principle as department previously accepted similar treatment. Interest income was classified as business income following established pattern. Interest expense deduction under section 24(b) was allowed based on area-wise apportionment without double deduction. Suo-moto disallowance under section 14A was deleted due to absence of exempt income. Profit from flat sales was correctly treated as business income, not income from other sources. Long-term capital loss claim was permitted despite not filing revised return, as Goetze ratio doesn't apply to appellate authorities. Other receipts were properly classified as business income being consequential to main business activities. en-us Wed, 20 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jun 2025 13:14:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462354 ITAT Mumbai upheld CIT(A)'s decision treating service centre income as business income rather than house property income, applying consistency principle as department previously accepted similar treatment. Interest income was classified as business income following established pattern. Interest expense deduction under section 24(b) was allowed based on area-wise apportionment without double deduction. Suo-moto disallowance under section 14A was deleted due to absence of exempt income. Profit from flat sales was correctly treated as business income, not income from other sources. Long-term capital loss claim was permitted despite not filing revised return, as Goetze ratio doesn't apply to appellate authorities. Other receipts were properly classified as business income being consequential to main business activities. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 20 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462354