ITAT Mumbai Judgments — June 2016

The Tribunal held that TDS was not required on payments to foreign shipping companies, following a Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court. The Tribunal also remanded the issue of commission payments to the AO for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee to submit evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the genuine cause of the mother's death. Regarding the addition, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, taking into account the pending appeal of the assessee's wife concerning her income and sale of jewellery.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim for deduction under Section 54 with necessary evidence before the lower authorities or the Tribunal. Therefore, the claim was not allowed.

The Tribunal held that the cash withdrawals from the bank, which were recorded as cash in hand, were explained. Since it was the assessee's own action and not invested in any income-earning instrument, the cash could not be treated as unexplained.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was bad in law. Consequently, the entire proceedings and the impugned orders were considered void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was bad in law. Consequently, the entire proceedings and the impugned orders were considered void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under Section 50C, based on a deemed value, does not automatically imply concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal found that the assessee had disclosed the transaction and relevant documents.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the commission payment was made to an overseas agent with no permanent establishment in India. Therefore, the income was not chargeable to tax in India, and the disallowance was rightly deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in directing to take the cost of acquisition of flats at Rs. 300/- per sq. ft. The Tribunal noted that the ITAT had previously held in assessee's own case for AY 2000-01 that receipts in lieu of rent were revenue in nature. The Tribunal also observed that it was unclear how the assessee offered profit on sale of 7 flats as long-term capital gains, as the flats were held as stock-in-trade. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh decision after considering the assessee's submissions. Regarding rental income, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat it as income from house property, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT. For Urban Land Ceiling Act charges, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s direction to allow deduction in the year of actual payment as per Section 43B. The addition of Rs. 1,24,31,865/- for shops and flats was deleted as these were not constructed or transferred during the year. The Rs. 20 lacs received on assignment was also not offered for taxation as it was contingent on certain conditions.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on a compulsory FDR for a performance guarantee is intrinsically linked to the business activity and should not be taxed as 'income from other sources'. It also held that expenses incurred after setting up but before commencement of business are allowable.

The Tribunal noted that in previous assessment years, similar issues were set aside to the AO for fresh consideration. Following the precedent and the agreement of the DR, the Tribunal decided to allow the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was made on book profit under Section 115JB and no tax was evaded, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be levied. The judgment of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. was applied, as the amendment to Section 271(1)(c) was prospective.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the exceptional circumstances presented by the assessee. The assessment framed under Section 144 was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment after providing copies of seized materials and an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the AO. The AO is to pass fresh orders after considering the outcome of appeals related to the payee company's PE status. If no PE is found, the assessee will not be liable for TDS.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the exceptional circumstances presented by the assessee. The assessment framed under Section 144 was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment after providing copies of seized materials and an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the exceptional circumstances presented by the assessee. The assessment framed under Section 144 was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment after providing copies of seized materials and an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the exceptional circumstances presented by the assessee. The assessment framed under Section 144 was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment after providing copies of seized materials and an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds regarding depreciation, following the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that depreciation is permissible even if the asset cost was claimed as application of income. The Tribunal also upheld the exemption for the pharmacy, deeming it integral to the hospital's medical relief activities.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer is to consider the assessee's plea that the material relied upon by him was also considered in other family members' cases, which were decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the exceptional circumstances presented by the assessee. The assessment framed under Section 144 was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment after providing copies of seized materials and an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing bonafide reasons and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) was directed to adjudicate the appeals on their merits.

The Tribunal found that the additional evidence sought to be produced by the assessee was relevant and necessary for a just decision. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO to admit the additional evidence and decide the issue afresh.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the applicable CBDT circular. The appeal was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 54F should include stamp duty and registration charges, allowing the full claimed amount. For the cash deposits, the Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation was not properly examined and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that balances brought forward from earlier years cannot be assessed in the current year. However, for the remaining credits, the assessee needs to prove their genuineness, requiring fresh examination by the AO.

The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the AO. The AO is to pass fresh orders after considering the outcome of appeals related to the payee company's PE status. If no PE is found, the assessee will not be liable for TDS.

The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the AO. The AO is to pass fresh orders after considering the outcome of appeals related to the payee company's PE status. If no PE is found, the assessee will not be liable for TDS.

The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the AO. The AO is to pass fresh orders after considering the outcome of appeals related to the payee company's PE status. If no PE is found, the assessee will not be liable for TDS.

The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the AO. The AO is to pass fresh orders after considering the outcome of appeals related to the payee company's PE status. If no PE is found, the assessee will not be liable for TDS.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the filing of additional evidence, decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for examination. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the genuineness of the claim and decide accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below Rs. 10 lakhs. Following a CBDT circular, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal restored the issue concerning M/s. Basant Trading Co. to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to prove the genuineness of purchases and usage. For M/s. Mahavir Roadlines and M/s. Bhandari Packaging, the Tribunal found sufficient evidence of genuineness and directed deletion of additions.

The tribunal upheld the disallowance of marked-to-market loss, finding that it cannot accrue until settlement, and confirmed the disallowance under Section 14A, noting the assessee also held shares as investment and made partial voluntary disallowances.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2009-10, the disallowance under Section 14A should be recomputed based on the assessee's own calculation, following a previous Tribunal order. For AY 2010-11, a ground regarding set-off of capital losses was allowed in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine. This was because the tax effect was below Rs. 10,00,000 and did not fall under any exceptions mentioned in the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2009-10, the disallowance under Section 14A should be recomputed based on the assessee's own calculation, following a previous Tribunal order. For AY 2010-11, a ground regarding set-off of capital losses was allowed in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the contractor confirmed the repair work and payments were made by cheque. Regarding loans, it was found that the creditworthiness and genuineness were established, and no double addition was permissible.

The Tribunal held that the contractor confirmed the repair work and payments were made by cheque. Regarding loans, it was found that the creditworthiness and genuineness were established, and no double addition was permissible.

The Tribunal held that the omission of society maintenance charges was a debatable issue, and the increase in interest income was due to TDS certificate discrepancies. Therefore, the additional income was declared for bonafide reasons, not attracting penalty.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was deleted, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) would not survive. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below Rs. 10,00,000/- and did not fall under any exceptions mentioned in the CBDT Circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had sufficient own funds exceeding its investments, no disallowance for interest expenditure was warranted. It also noted that the voluntary disallowance of Rs. 73,740/- by the assessee was confirmed by the CIT(A), leading to a double disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which stipulates a monetary limit for filing appeals. The appeal was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as it did not fall under any exceptions in the CBDT circular. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the limited right to use the software, without granting copyright or the right to use the copyright, does not constitute royalty under the Income Tax Act or the India-Netherlands DTAA.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's surrender of gift receipts as income was bonafide, as he could not produce supporting documents after a considerable time. Therefore, the penalty levied for concealment of income was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's surrender of gift receipts as income was bonafide, as he could not produce supporting documents after a considerable time. Therefore, the penalty levied for concealment of income was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below Rs. 10 lakhs. Following a CBDT circular, the Tribunal found the appeal not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the remuneration of Rs. 20,000 per month per director, considering their experience, was not unreasonable. Since the tax authorities failed to provide material evidence that the payment was excessive or not for legitimate business needs, the disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the limited right to use the software, without granting copyright or the right to use the copyright, does not constitute royalty under the Income Tax Act or the India-Netherlands DTAA.