ITAT Mumbai Judgments — August 2016

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not liable for interest under Section 234B. This is because the taxability of offshore services arose due to a retrospective amendment in law, which could not have been anticipated by the assessee at the time of filing the return. Furthermore, a Section 197 certificate was issued by the AO allowing receipt of payments without TDS.

The Tribunal held that the penalty on the adjustment for import of plates was not sustainable as the issue was set aside for fresh adjudication. For technical services, the Tribunal found substance in the assessee's argument that the ALP adjustment was made without proper procedure and thus the penalty deletion was affirmed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's involvement was not established due to lack of evidence and the unreliability of the witness's initial statement. Therefore, no addition was warranted in the assessee's hands.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's involvement was not established due to lack of evidence and the unreliability of the witness's initial statement. Therefore, no addition was warranted in the assessee's hands.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's involvement was not established due to lack of evidence and the unreliability of the witness's initial statement. Therefore, no addition was warranted in the assessee's hands.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's involvement was not established due to lack of evidence and the unreliability of the witness's initial statement. Therefore, no addition was warranted in the assessee's hands.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking and reasoned order and failed to consider the consistency in treatment from earlier years. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the doctors engaged by the hospital were independent professionals and not employees, as the terms of engagement did not establish an employer-employee relationship. Therefore, TDS was correctly deducted under Section 194J, not Section 192.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's involvement was not established due to lack of evidence and the unreliability of the witness's initial statement. Therefore, no addition was warranted in the assessee's hands.

For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order vitiated due to a factual error regarding the penalty section and restored the matter for fresh consideration. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty, agreeing that the statement was recorded under Section 132(4) and the assessee was entitled to immunity.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's involvement was not established due to lack of evidence and the unreliability of the witness's initial statement. Therefore, no addition was warranted in the assessee's hands.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s estimation of Rs. 1 lakh as disallowance for earning exempt income was sufficient, considering the exempt income was only Rs. 82,982/- and the Head Office expenses were Rs. 2,97,651/-.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee has a duty to inform about address changes, the CIT(A) issued only a single notice and made no further effort to contact the assessee. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish the genuineness of the transaction. The additional evidence produced before the Tribunal did not prove the sale of shares to NPS. Therefore, the order of the FAA was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's involvement was not established due to lack of evidence and the unreliability of the witness's initial statement. Therefore, no addition was warranted in the assessee's hands.

The Tribunal held that the claim of depreciation on FSI needs to be examined with reference to primary records. It was also held that FSI is not a business or commercial right similar to those listed in Section 32(1)(ii), thus not eligible for depreciation at 25%. However, the issue of adding FSI to the building block for depreciation was allowed in part.

The Tribunal restored the issue of bogus purchases to the AO for verification, directing that the addition should be restricted to the depreciation claimed if the purchases were indeed capitalized as fixed assets. The other grounds were not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt.

For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order vitiated due to a factual error regarding the penalty section and restored the matter for fresh consideration. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty, agreeing that the statement was recorded under Section 132(4) and the assessee was entitled to immunity.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding Section 14A disallowance, restricting it to 10% of dividend income. It allowed the appeal concerning the applicability of Rule 8D for earlier assessment years and allowed depreciation on leased assets. For one assessment year, penalty proceedings were dismissed as premature.

The Tribunal held that the investment in shares had a nexus with the assessee's business purpose, citing S.A. Builders. It also found that since the directors paid tax at the maximum marginal rate, the interest paid was not excessive under Section 40A(2)(b).

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, deleting the disallowance under Section 14A to a reasonable extent, allowing the diminution in share value, and consequently deleting the interest charges. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s direction to compute capital loss under Section 45(2A).

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, deleting the disallowance under Section 14A to a reasonable extent, allowing the diminution in share value, and consequently deleting the interest charges. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s direction to compute capital loss under Section 45(2A).

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding disallowance of proportionate interest expenditure, referencing a jurisdictional High Court decision. It also directed verification of certain investments for the purpose of calculating administrative expenses disallowance.

For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order vitiated due to a factual error regarding the penalty section and restored the matter for fresh consideration. For AY 2009-10, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty, agreeing that the statement was recorded under Section 132(4) and the assessee was entitled to immunity.

The Tribunal held that registration under section 12AA can be granted to trusts with both charitable and religious objects, and that the absence of a dissolution clause and the fact that activities had not yet commenced do not automatically disentitle a trust to registration.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 10 lacs. The appeal was dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that Section 94(7) should be applied only at the time of sale of mutual fund units, and since the units were sold in the succeeding year, the disallowance was not required in the current year. The assessee had a bonafide belief supported by prior tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal restored the case to the AO for examination of additional evidence filed by the assessee, including financial statements and bank statements of the assessee's wife, as these were not considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the sanction for issuing the notice under Section 148 was not obtained from the competent authority (Joint Commissioner) as required by Section 151(2).

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate his business claims and the matter needs to be restored to the AO for further examination. The AO is directed to provide an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and determine the profit on an objective basis.

The Tribunal held that the administrative expenses were of a routine nature, similar to those incurred in preceding years and allowed in a prior assessment. The disallowance was set aside as there was no challenge to the genuineness of the expenses.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's involvement in issuing accommodation entries was not substantiated by evidence. Relying on a coordinate bench's decision and the inconsistent statements of a witness, the Tribunal found no basis for the addition.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to deny the deduction under Section 80IB(10) because the project was developed on land less than one acre, which is a mandatory condition. The validity of reopening the assessment was also confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the claim of depreciation on FSI needs to be examined with reference to primary records. It was also held that FSI is not a business or commercial right similar to those listed in Section 32(1)(ii), thus not eligible for depreciation at 25%. However, the issue of adding FSI to the building block for depreciation was allowed in part.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding on the merits of the grounds raised, which is contrary to the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Act. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's plea for applying the second proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act was maintainable. It directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the transfer pricing adjustment by implementing the provisions of the second proviso to Section 92C(2).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the initial approvals for the project had lapsed and the actual construction commenced after the cut-off date. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for the deduction.

The Tribunal held that fringe benefit tax provisions must be read subject to Section 10 of the Income Tax Act. Since the assessee's only income was agricultural income, which is exempt, it was not liable for FBT.

The Tribunal restored the issue of carbon credit income to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. It allowed the claim for additional depreciation on windmills, following High Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was unsustainable as it was disposed of without adjudicating on the merits of the grounds raised, contrary to Section 250(6) of the Act. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. It found that the provision for warranty was necessary, integral to the sale of specialized medical equipment, and made based on a regularly followed accounting system.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s order, confirming the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income regarding the sale of jewellery. The assessee's claim of inadvertent mistake due to an accountant's error and stress was not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded his jurisdiction by levying fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015. Such adjustments were not permissible before the amendment effective from that date.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided new addresses for the companies and submitted Form No. 18. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was engaged in the IT services business and had a substantial number of employees. The Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's involvement was not established due to lack of evidence and the unreliability of the witness's initial statement. Therefore, no addition was warranted in the assessee's hands.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's involvement was not established by any material evidence, especially considering the inconsistent and retracted statements of the witness. Therefore, no addition was warranted in the assessee's hands.

The Tribunal held that for the period prior to June 1, 2015, the Assessing Officer (TDS) exceeded his jurisdiction by levying fees under Section 234E while processing TDS statements under Section 200A. Such adjustments were not permissible before the amendment effective from June 1, 2015.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim was based on a bona fide belief, as the land was consistently treated as agricultural in its books and past returns. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal found no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that payments for research services are allowable as revenue expenditure. Disallowances for travel, printing, and stationery were deleted as they were considered routine business expenses. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's involvement was not established due to lack of evidence and the unreliability of the witness's initial statement. Therefore, no addition was warranted in the assessee's hands.