https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774029 ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the appellant regarding multiple disallowances. The tribunal found that the appellant had already disallowed interest on borrowed capital under section 36(1)(iii) in its return of income and computation of income, making the AO's addition a double disallowance, which was deleted. Similarly, disallowances for amortization of premium on leasehold land were deleted as the company had already disallowed these amounts. For MAT computation under section 115JB, the matter was remitted to the AO with directions to verify the return of income and delete any additions already disallowed by the appellant itself. en-us Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Jul 2025 08:42:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774029 ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the appellant regarding multiple disallowances. The tribunal found that the appellant had already disallowed interest on borrowed capital under section 36(1)(iii) in its return of income and computation of income, making the AO's addition a double disallowance, which was deleted. Similarly, disallowances for amortization of premium on leasehold land were deleted as the company had already disallowed these amounts. For MAT computation under section 115JB, the matter was remitted to the AO with directions to verify the return of income and delete any additions already disallowed by the appellant itself. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774029