ITAT Mumbai Judgments — June 2016

The Tribunal held that the charges paid to banks for credit card facilities do not attract TDS under Section 194H. Therefore, the assessee cannot be considered an assessee in default.

The Tribunal held that the payment made to BMC was compensatory in nature and not penal. Following a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal allowed the expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the full benefit of additional depreciation as per Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The restriction to 50% for the first year due to usage period does not divert the statutory right to claim the remaining depreciation in subsequent years.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 201(1)/201(1A) must be completed within one year from the end of the financial year in which they were initiated, as per the Bombay High Court's decision. Since the AO passed the order after eight years, it was barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that since the creditors had confirmed receipt of payment, there was no cessation of liability. The matter was restored to the AO for verification of actual payment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had transferred a capital asset, i.e., the right over the properties, and not just deposits. It further held that the Assessing Officer was justified in substituting the fair market value for the full value of sale consideration in this case, especially given the transaction was between related parties.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning exempt income. Since the CIT(A) had already restricted the disallowance to the actual expenditure, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere.

The Tribunal decided several grounds, including directing the AO to allow actual site restoration expenses and verify TDS credit. Some issues were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, while others were decided against the assessee.

The Tribunal held that while losses on open derivative contracts are allowable based on the principle of prudence, anticipated gains are not to be recognized until settlement, as per accounting principles. Therefore, the enhancement made by the CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal decided several grounds, including directing the AO to allow actual site restoration expenses and verify TDS credit. Some issues were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, while others were decided against the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the tax effect involved was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The circular, with retrospective effect, barred appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that since the creditors had confirmed receipt of payment, there was no cessation of liability. The matter was restored to the AO for verification of actual payment.