ITAT Mumbai Judgments — December 2015

The Tribunal held that the purchases were not bogus as the supplier had retracted his earlier statement and confirmed genuine sales with cross-cheque payments. Previous decisions of the Tribunal on identical facts also favored the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified. However, issues related to the classification of license fees and disallowance of expenses were set aside to the AO for fresh examination in light of the Supreme Court decision in Chennai Properties. The issue of interest from bank deposits was upheld against the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to discharge the initial onus to prove the source of cash credits and unexplained expenditure.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no infirmity in the decision to restrict additions to the peak cash credit. The assessee's failure to appear led to an ex-parte disposal.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no infirmity in the decision to restrict additions to the peak cash credit. The assessee's failure to appear led to an ex-parte disposal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the commission expenses by not furnishing relevant documents to show that the recipients actually rendered services. The net profit rate argument was not considered sufficient.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when there is no exempt income. It also held that the written-off advance, due to non-performance of business supply, is a legitimate business expenditure.