ITAT Mumbai Judgments — December 2015

The Tribunal allowed the deletion of additions related to wage payments for AY 2009-10, considering the assessee's voluntary disclosure. For AY 2010-11, it allowed the deletion of unexplained bank deposits but dismissed the appeal regarding wage payments. The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute interest under Section 234B.

The Tribunal allowed the deletion of additions related to wage payments for AY 2009-10, considering the assessee's voluntary disclosure. For AY 2010-11, it allowed the deletion of unexplained bank deposits but dismissed the appeal regarding wage payments. The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute interest under Section 234B.

The tribunal dismissed the grounds related to depreciation and business expenditures, finding the assessee failed to prove the necessity of these expenses without active business operations. However, the issue of payment to vacate land was remanded to the AO for verification of cheque encashment.

The Tribunal held that the validity of additions needs to be decided by the CIT(A) after verifying if seized material was received before the original assessment concluded. If so, the original assessment should abate, and additions should be considered in the Section 153C proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the litigation and the subsequent consent decree, where the assessee agreed to refund the advance, required verification by the AO. If confirmed, the advance should not be taxed as income.

The CIT(A) correctly held that the partners were merely conduits for obtaining loans for the firm. The substance of the transaction was a single loan obtained by the firm, making the interest and financial expenses deductible.

The Tribunal held that the omission to add back the doubtful debts was an inadvertent error, not a concealment of facts, as the details were disclosed in the audited financial statements. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had maintained separate investment and trading portfolios and consistently treated them differently. The AO's acceptance of long-term capital loss in subsequent years further supported the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal held that in cases where assessments have been completed and no incriminating material is found during a search, additions under Section 153A are unsustainable. Completed assessments can only be interfered with if based on incriminating material unearthed during the search.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) is restricted to the actual provision for bad and doubtful debts debited to the profit and loss account. The appeal regarding amortization of loss on HTM investments was decided in favor of the assessee, following High Court precedents.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the assessee had invested the capital gains in acquiring a new residential house within the prescribed period. The exemption cannot be denied solely due to delayed construction or possession.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) is restricted to the actual provision for bad and doubtful debts debited to the profit and loss account. The appeal regarding amortization of loss on HTM investments was decided in favor of the assessee, following High Court precedents.

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground regarding the exclusion of a comparable company, Asian Business Exhibition & Conference Ltd, and remanded this issue to the AO for further examination. The Tribunal also remanded the issue of software license fees to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable. It noted that the share application money was received through account payee cheques/drafts and was found in the bank accounts of the investing companies. Statements recorded without corroborative evidence lacked evidentiary value.

The Tribunal held that the validity of additions needs to be decided by the CIT(A) after verifying if seized material was received before the original assessment concluded. If so, the original assessment should abate, and additions should be considered in the Section 153C proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had maintained separate investment and trading portfolios and consistently treated them differently. The AO's acceptance of long-term capital loss in subsequent years further supported the assessee's claim.

The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, finding the assessee's belief regarding non-taxability to be bonafide and the issue debatable, especially since the AO initially agreed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity.

The Tribunal held that the Profit Split Method (PSM) was not the most appropriate method for indenting services. It directed the AO to adopt an ALP rate of 3.63% by averaging comparable cases. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's grounds regarding TDS credit and interest, and deleted additions made under Section 40(a)(ia) for reimbursement of employee salaries.

The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, finding that the payment was made to remove an obstruction and obtain clear title, thus forming part of the cost of acquisition or improvement. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that commercial sense allows for negotiation over legal action.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee's transactions were delivery-based, lacked repetitive trades, and a significant portion of gains came from shares held for over 300 days. The Tribunal agreed that the intention was not primarily for trading.

The Tribunal held that marketing, general administrative, and finance costs incurred by the assessee were rightly claimed as business expenditure and should not be added to WIP. It also ruled that interest income earned on temporary deposits of customer advances should be treated as business income.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order under Section 271B was bad in law as it was passed by the CIT(A) who did not fall within the definition of 'Assessing Officer'. For the Section 271(1)(c) appeals, the Tribunal noted that previous ITAT orders had deleted the additions that formed the basis of the penalty, rendering the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order under Section 271B was bad in law as it was passed by the CIT(A) who did not fall within the definition of 'Assessing Officer'. For the Section 271(1)(c) appeals, the Tribunal noted that previous ITAT orders had deleted the additions that formed the basis of the penalty, rendering the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order under Section 271B was bad in law as it was passed by the CIT(A) who did not fall within the definition of 'Assessing Officer'. For the Section 271(1)(c) appeals, the Tribunal noted that previous ITAT orders had deleted the additions that formed the basis of the penalty, rendering the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the interest earned should be netted against the interest paid, following previous decisions. However, it upheld the disallowance of professional charges paid for conversion to a company due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order under Section 271B was bad in law as it was passed by the CIT(A) who did not fall within the definition of 'Assessing Officer'. For the Section 271(1)(c) appeals, the Tribunal noted that previous ITAT orders had deleted the additions that formed the basis of the penalty, rendering the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the lower authorities for verifying the net profit earned on the sale of surplus material and the assessee's eligibility for Section 80IB deduction on this additional income. The addition should be confined to the net income, not the gross receipts.

The Tribunal held that the interest earned should be netted against the interest paid, following previous decisions. However, it upheld the disallowance of professional charges paid for conversion to a company due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted as the case involves a simple disallowance of interest expenditure, not furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that the non-payment was due to inadvertence and not an intention to delay or avoid tax. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated by CBDT instructions. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed due to contravention of the CBDT circular. The appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the issues raised.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal. As there was no objection from the revenue, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was below Rs. 10 lakhs. Citing CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, the Tribunal held that appeals with a tax effect below the specified monetary limit are not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not pressed in terms of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which revised monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed due to contravention of the CBDT circular. The appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the issues raised.

The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT instructions and the revised monetary limits, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/- are not maintainable before the ITAT.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed due to contravention of the CBDT circular. The appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the issues raised.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed due to contravention of the CBDT circular. The appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the issues raised.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed due to contravention of the CBDT circular. The appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the issues raised.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed due to contravention of the CBDT circular. The appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the issues raised.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed due to contravention of the CBDT circular. The appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the issues raised.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed due to contravention of the CBDT circular. The appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the issues raised.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not pressed in terms of the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which revised monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed due to contravention of the circular.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed due to contravention of the CBDT circular. The appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the issues raised.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were deemed withdrawn or not pressed due to contravention of the CBDT circular. The appeals were dismissed without going into the merits of the issues raised.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in each appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakh as per CBDT instructions. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not pressed and were liable to be treated as withdrawn in view of the CBDT Circular which revised monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty, as the basis for levying the penalty no longer existed after the deletion of the quantum addition. The Tribunal also noted that it had previously held that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax under Section 194I on PSF.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in each appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakh as per CBDT instructions. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.