ITAT Mumbai Judgments — April 2016

The Tribunal held that the AMP expenses incurred by the assessee were not an international transaction and thus, the provisions of Section 92 of the Income Tax Act were not applicable. For disallowance under Section 14A, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to Rs. 10 lakhs, finding the AO's application of Rule 8D mechanical. An additional ground regarding deduction under Section 80IC was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AMP expenses incurred by the assessee were not an international transaction and thus, the provisions of Section 92 of the Income Tax Act were not applicable. For disallowance under Section 14A, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to Rs. 10 lakhs, finding the AO's application of Rule 8D mechanical. An additional ground regarding deduction under Section 80IC was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO's action in reducing the rebate claim under Section 88E was not justified. The average rate of income tax should be applied to the taxable income from share trading, not just the direct income.

The Tribunal set aside the assessment and directed the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment denovo. The Assessing Officer was instructed to provide the reasons for reopening and grant the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the issue of cessation of liability of sundry creditors needed to be re-examined by the AO due to additional evidence and submissions. The issue of interest under Section 234A was also remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that for 80HHC deduction, only the profits and turnover of the export unit should be considered, aligning with previous tribunal orders. For 80IB deduction, twisting and texturizing of yarn was confirmed as manufacturing activity, following a Supreme Court decision.

The Tribunal held that the genuineness of the interest payment was not in doubt and there was no evidence of tax evasion or benefit to the associate concern. Therefore, the disallowance of interest on delayed purchases was unjustified.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that a non-resident company not liable to pay advance tax under Sections 208 and 209 cannot be subjected to interest under Sections 234B and 234C. The decision relied on jurisdictional High Court rulings that distinguished cases where the assessee had accepted tax liability.

The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment, finding sufficient new materials. However, for Assessment Year 2007-08, additions based on a document from a prior year were deleted due to lack of evidence for the current year.

The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment, finding sufficient new materials. However, for Assessment Year 2007-08, additions based on a document from a prior year were deleted due to lack of evidence for the current year.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that a non-resident company not liable to pay advance tax under Sections 208 and 209 cannot be subjected to interest under Sections 234B and 234C. The decision relied on jurisdictional High Court rulings that distinguished cases where the assessee had accepted tax liability.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee also paid 18% interest to outside parties, the disallowance solely based on interest paid to related parties was unjustified. The reasonableness of interest should consider business needs and commercial expediency.

The Tribunal found the estimated income to be disproportionately high given the approximate sales figures and lack of profit margin information. They directed the AO to assess the total income at Rs. 5 lakhs.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that a non-resident company not liable to pay advance tax under Sections 208 and 209 cannot be subjected to interest under Sections 234B and 234C. The decision relied on jurisdictional High Court rulings that distinguished cases where the assessee had accepted tax liability.

The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment, finding sufficient new materials. However, for Assessment Year 2007-08, additions based on a document from a prior year were deleted due to lack of evidence for the current year.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that a non-resident company not liable to pay advance tax under Sections 208 and 209 cannot be subjected to interest under Sections 234B and 234C. The decision relied on jurisdictional High Court rulings that distinguished cases where the assessee had accepted tax liability.

The Tribunal held that the penalty could not be sustained as the addition was based on an ad-hoc estimation without considering the material on record, including previously filed returns. The Tribunal deleted the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not leviable as the genuineness of the expenditure was not doubted, and the excess payment was approved by the Government. The Tribunal followed its own previous orders on identical facts and a Supreme Court decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition for completed projects, as the AO had correctly identified substantial completion and receipt of consideration. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding disallowance for payments to a sister concern, following a previous decision in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal found contradictions in the orders and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the assessee's claims regarding payments to farmers, allowing the assessee an opportunity to furnish necessary evidence and potentially record statements from the farmers.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were not without jurisdiction, except for a potential scope limitation for AY 2002-03. Grievances regarding opportunity of being heard and reliance on external investigations were dismissed. Additions related to jewellery were set aside for fresh adjudication. Penalty levies were set aside for fresh consideration after quantum assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessments were not without jurisdiction, except for a potential scope limitation for AY 2002-03. Grievances regarding opportunity of being heard and reliance on external investigations were dismissed. Additions related to jewellery were set aside for fresh adjudication. Penalty levies were set aside for fresh consideration after quantum assessment.

The Tribunal held that the penalty could not be sustained as the addition was based on an ad-hoc estimation without considering the material on record, including previously filed returns. The Tribunal deleted the penalty.

The Tribunal set aside the issues related to interest expenditure and book profit calculation to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, following a precedent. The issue of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was allowed for statistical purposes to revisit the AO for calculation inaccuracies.

The Tribunal remanded grounds 1 and 2 to the AO for decision based on a previous Tribunal order. For ground 3 concerning Section 14A, the AO was directed to quantify the disallowance in light of Hon'ble High Court judgments, considering the assessment years were prior to Rule 8D amendment.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2007-08, restoring an issue to the first appellate authority for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no basis for the protective assessments.

The Tribunal held that the penalty could not be sustained as the addition was based on an ad-hoc estimation without considering the material on record, including previously filed returns. The Tribunal deleted the penalty.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed at the same amount as the original assessment. The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal, which was not objected to by the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the monetary limit prescribed by the Board for appeals to the Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed as incompetent.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed as the appeal was withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed the jurisdictional grounds, holding that the assessments were valid. However, it set aside the penalty appeals, directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the penalty issue after fresh assessment orders.

The Tribunal held that the excess deduction claimed was due to a bonafide mistake or human error, without any malafide intention. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the actual carpet area of the flat based on the purchase deed. If the assessee's claim of a smaller carpet area is found to be correct, the notional income should be recalculated accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 194J(ba) regarding TDS on director sitting fees was prospective, and thus not applicable to the assessment years in question. Consequently, the assessee was not liable for TDS on director sitting fees.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 194J(ba) regarding TDS on director sitting fees was prospective, and thus not applicable to the assessment years in question. Consequently, the assessee was not liable for TDS on director sitting fees.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground regarding reopening of assessment as not pressed. It directed the AO to allow the sales tax liability in the year of payment. The revenue's appeal regarding deemed dividend was dismissed as the issue was covered by previous ITAT decisions.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A requires a nexus between expenditure and exempt income, and in the absence of incurred expenditure, the section cannot be invoked. Regarding ESOP expenses, the Tribunal followed its earlier decision that such expenses are allowable business expenditure. The Tribunal also ruled that share buyback transactions, when legally permissible, do not constitute a colorable device to evade tax.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground regarding reopening of assessment as not pressed. It directed the AO to allow the sales tax liability in the year of payment. The revenue's appeal regarding deemed dividend was dismissed as the issue was covered by previous ITAT decisions.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's change of method and the DRP's dismissal of objections lacked proper reasoning and opportunity for the assessee, remanding the transfer pricing issue for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision on the Section 10A deduction, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the unsecured loans and share capital introductions with sufficient documentary evidence. The AO had not collected any evidence to rebut the assessee's submissions.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's rejection of comparables without justification and in contradiction to previous years was not tenable. The adjustment made was found to be contrary to law and was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the amenities charges could be part of the cost of acquisition if the flat was not complete at the time of purchase and other flat owners also entered into similar agreements. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify this aspect.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's change of method and the DRP's dismissal of objections lacked proper reasoning and opportunity for the assessee, remanding the transfer pricing issue for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision on the Section 10A deduction, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling.

The Tribunal directed the AO to consider the refund of deposit made with SIPCOT as the cost of acquisition for capital gains computation. The issues regarding TDS disallowance and set-off of brought forward losses were dismissed as they did not arise from the lower authorities' orders.

The Tribunal held that no addition can be made under Section 40(a)(ia) when the relationship is principal-to-principal. Provisions of Section 172 of the Act apply, making Sections 194C and 195 inapplicable.

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for calculating the peak credit of deposits and withdrawals, with the addition restricted to the peak credit.

The Tribunal held that no transfer pricing adjustment was warranted as the Arms Length Price (ALP) determined by the TPO fell within the permissible range of +/- 5% of the actual transaction value, as per the second proviso to Section 92C(2). Grounds 2 and 3 were dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities may not have properly examined the evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, both grounds related to the disallowance of expenses were remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order, failing to address crucial aspects like the genuineness of purchase confirmations, banking transactions, and the assessee's explanation for non-attendance during remand proceedings.