ITAT Mumbai Judgments — December 2015

The Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustments should be restricted only to international transactions with associated enterprises. The Revenue's appeal regarding the exclusion of certain comparables was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo examination.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable because the tax effect was below the threshold specified in the CBDT instruction. The instruction stipulated that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 Lacs should not be filed.

The Tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustments should be restricted only to international transactions with associated enterprises. The Revenue's appeal regarding the exclusion of certain comparables was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo examination.

The Tribunal held that the TPO was not fettered by any cut-off date for gathering contemporaneous data for transfer pricing audit. It also held that the +/- 5% variation for ALP adjustment is not allowable. The Tribunal directed that the transfer pricing adjustment be restricted to the assessee's international transactions.

The Tribunal restored the issue of DEPB claim to the AO for verification, as it was not examined by lower authorities. Regarding expense allocation, the Tribunal held that a difference of opinion on a debatable issue does not constitute concealment of income and directed the deletion of penalty on reallocated expenditure.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as the approval from the Ministry came later and the assessee had already provided for the liability. The reversal of excess remuneration was also considered.

The Tribunal held that as per the CBDT Circular, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs are not maintainable. Therefore, all the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect as per CBDT instructions. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection also did not survive.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT instructions, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakh are not maintainable before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance made under Section 14A, finding that the assessee failed to rebut the findings of the lower authorities. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on goodwill as an intangible asset is allowable under Section 32 of the Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in Smifs Securities Ltd. The other grounds raised by the assessee were not pressed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal following the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets monetary limits for filing departmental appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was not maintainable on merits.

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

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

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

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

The Tribunal held that in view of the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs are not maintainable. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as not pressed.

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

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

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

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the disallowance for earning exempt income and make a reasonable disallowance. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance for foreign commission, stating that TDS was not required as services were rendered abroad and no permanent establishment existed in India.

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

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

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

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

The Tribunal held that the capital gains should be treated as STCG/LTCG based on past assessment orders and the principle of consistency. It also ruled that the agricultural land was outside the definition of a capital asset, allowing the exemption.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not warranted merely because tax was deducted under the wrong section (194C instead of 194J) or if there was a short deduction. The disallowance is only applicable if tax was not deducted at all or not paid after deduction.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim that the issues raised in the appeal were considered in a subsequent assessment order. Therefore, the findings of the CIT(A) were not to be interfered with.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT instructions. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.

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

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

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

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in each appeal was below the monetary limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- as per CBDT instructions. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in each appeal was below the monetary limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- as per CBDT instructions. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT instructions. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable.

The Tribunal restored the issue of the date of handing over possession and passing of sale consideration to the AO for verification. It also remanded the issue of applying Section 50C for fresh consideration after obtaining a valuation report.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The circular was applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not pressed in terms of the CBDT circular due to the low tax effect. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the issues raised.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) by following earlier ITAT decisions. For other grounds, matters were either dismissed, allowed for statistical purposes, or remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration based on specific directions and precedents.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide the assessee an opportunity to explain cash deposits in the bank accounts of three lenders, violating natural justice. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.