ITAT Mumbai Judgments — May 2016

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the disputed amount was below the threshold stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding sales promotion expenses, noting that similar ad-hoc disallowances were deleted in prior years. The Tribunal also allowed appeals concerning the classification of e-connectivity charges as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The appeal was considered not maintainable due to the low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that the internal use of software for which consideration is paid does not amount to infringement of copyright. Therefore, such payments do not constitute royalty under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the additional evidence and that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity by the AO. The matter was set aside to the AO for de-novo determination.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the disallowance of expenses for earning exempt income. For the revenue's appeal, the Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition for the transferee company should be the actual consideration paid, allowing depreciation.

The tribunal noted that the assessee was not pressing the ground related to asset ownership. For other grounds, particularly regarding interest expenditure and levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the internal use of software for which consideration is paid does not amount to infringement of copyright. Therefore, such payments do not constitute royalty under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the internal use of software for which consideration is paid does not amount to infringement of copyright. Therefore, such payments do not constitute royalty under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the internal use of software for which consideration is paid does not amount to infringement of copyright. Therefore, such payments do not constitute royalty under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the internal use of software for which consideration is paid does not amount to infringement of copyright. Therefore, such payments do not constitute royalty under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the internal use of software for which consideration is paid does not amount to infringement of copyright. Therefore, such payments do not constitute royalty under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the internal use of software for which consideration is paid does not amount to infringement of copyright. Therefore, such payments do not constitute royalty under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the internal use of software for which consideration is paid does not amount to infringement of copyright. Therefore, such payments do not constitute royalty under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim, finding no attempt to evade tax as both the assessee and the relatives paying interest were taxed at higher rates. The Tribunal followed the Bombay High Court's decision regarding payments to relatives where tax evasion is not evident.

The Tribunal held that the internal use of software for which consideration is paid does not amount to infringement of copyright. Therefore, such payments do not constitute royalty under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO to verify if the entire profit from a project was offered to tax across multiple assessment years. If the assessee's contention is correct, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) would be deleted as it would be tax neutral.

The Tribunal held that ICRA-O and IDFC were not functionally comparable to the assessee's investment advisory services. Therefore, they should be excluded from the list of comparables for computing the arm's length adjustment.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence in the interest of natural justice. The matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for examination of the new evidence.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee purchased software as a product for resale, the payment was for goods and not royalty. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs for filing appeals before the Tribunal, is binding on the Revenue. Since the tax effect was below this limit, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal deleted the penalty on the purchase difference as the assessee provided reconciliation, but sustained the penalty on undisclosed interest income based on the assessee's concession.

The Tribunal noted that the recipients of the interest had included it in their income and paid taxes. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable, especially considering the retrospective effect of the second proviso.

The Tribunal held that the lease rental income should be assessed as 'Income from Other Sources', following its own prior decisions for earlier assessment years. The issue of disallowance under Section 14A was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly allowed the deduction under Section 10A. The AO was directed to allow the deduction as the assessee fulfilled all substantive conditions and the quantum of deduction remained the same.

The Tribunal held that a difference of opinion regarding the head of income (capital gains vs. business income) does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable in such debatable issues.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the disallowance of expenses for earning exempt income. For the revenue's appeal, the Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition for the transferee company should be the actual consideration paid, allowing depreciation.

The Tribunal held that the internal use of software for which consideration is paid does not amount to infringement of copyright. Therefore, such payments do not constitute royalty under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the internal use of software for which consideration is paid does not amount to infringement of copyright. Therefore, such payments do not constitute royalty under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the CRM expenses, including items provided to doctors, were revenue expenditure and not capital in nature. The lower authorities' disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard by the AO and the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order on the reasonable cause. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that profits from share sales held for less than one month should be classified as business income, while those held for more than one month up to twelve months should be classified as STCG, following its own previous decision. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction for society maintenance charges, again following its prior ruling.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had accurately disclosed all particulars of its income. The reduction of interest income from capital work in progress was a difference of opinion, not a concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that the internal use of software for which consideration is paid does not amount to infringement of copyright. Therefore, such payments do not constitute royalty under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had accurately disclosed all particulars of its income. The reduction of interest income from capital work in progress was a difference of opinion, not a concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that royalty payments on technical know-how and trademark usage were at arm's length, following its previous decisions. Regarding AMP expenses, the Tribunal found a correlation between sales and expenses, but did not fully uphold the revenue's apportionment. For Section 14A, the Tribunal restricted the disallowance to 2% of exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the internal use of software for which consideration is paid does not amount to infringement of copyright. Therefore, such payments do not constitute royalty under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the internal use of software for which consideration is paid does not amount to infringement of copyright. Therefore, such payments do not constitute royalty under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the internal use of software for which consideration is paid does not amount to infringement of copyright. Therefore, such payments do not constitute royalty under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow deferred revenue expenditure as per the assessee's books of accounts. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's ground regarding the deduction of deferred revenue expenditure and the estimation of net profit, directing verification.

The Tribunal held that the internal use of software for which consideration is paid does not amount to infringement of copyright. Therefore, such payments do not constitute royalty under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the internal use of software for which consideration is paid does not amount to infringement of copyright. Therefore, such payments do not constitute royalty under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the disallowance of expenses for earning exempt income. For the revenue's appeal, the Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition for the transferee company should be the actual consideration paid, allowing depreciation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that share transactions were investments giving rise to capital gains and that the addition for unexplained loans was incorrectly made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs for filing appeals before the Tribunal, is binding on the Revenue. Since the tax effect was below this limit, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in rejecting the TNMM and adopting the CUP method without establishing sufficient comparability. It also noted that the DRP had directed the AO/TPO to verify the segmental analysis under TNMM. The Tribunal ultimately allowed the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee may have erred in classifying rental income, making a claim not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, especially when appellate relief was granted on other issues. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on capitalized software development costs is allowable as per the Income Tax Act and accounting standards. The assessee's grounds regarding front-end commission and TDS disallowance were also allowed.