ITAT Mumbai Judgments — September 2016

The Tribunal held that since the additions were based on estimation and the final sustained income was very close to the assessee's declared commission income, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. The penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the additions were based on estimation and the final sustained income was very close to the assessee's declared commission income, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. The penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the additions were based on estimation and the final sustained income was very close to the assessee's declared commission income, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. The penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in limine. This was based on the admitted fact that the tax effect was below Rs. 10 Lakhs, and the issue did not fall under any exceptions in the relevant CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that since the additions were based on estimation and the final sustained income was very close to the assessee's declared commission income, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. The penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in limine. This was because the tax effect was below Rs. 10,00,000, and the appeal did not fall under any exceptions specified in the relevant CBDT Circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in limine. This was because the tax effect was below Rs. 10,00,000, and the appeal did not fall under any exceptions specified in the relevant CBDT Circular.

The Tribunal held that the 'Mark to Market' loss on forward exchange contracts, used for hedging business exposure, is an integral part of business activities and not a notional loss. It also held that cutting and polishing of diamonds constitutes manufacturing or production of an article or thing, making the assessee eligible for additional depreciation.

The assessee's authorized representative submitted that they did not wish to press the appeal. The departmental representative raised no objection.

The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously allowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 44C. Therefore, the current appeal on this issue had become infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the issue of taxability of capital gains on mutual funds in India was already concluded in favor of the assessee by a co-ordinate bench, affirming that such gains are not taxable in India under the treaty. Therefore, withdrawing indexation in a reassessment was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove the transaction was bogus. The Tribunal noted that the purchase of shares was reflected in the balance sheet, and sale proceeds were received through banking channels, thus upholding the deletion of additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove the transaction was bogus. The Tribunal noted that the purchase of shares was reflected in the balance sheet, and sale proceeds were received through banking channels, thus upholding the deletion of additions made by the AO.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as the issue had been resolved in a subsequent assessment year. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal application.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to apply Section 50C, a mandatory provision, rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. However, it allowed the assessee to raise objections regarding the application of Section 50C before the CIT(A) or AO.

The Tribunal found that the AO made the disallowance on an ad-hoc basis without specific justification. Considering the facts, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 1% of the expenses.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine. It was held that the tax effect in the appeal was below Rs. 10,00,000/- and did not fall under any exceptions specified in the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the development agreement did not result in a transfer of land as per Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. Crucially, possession of the land was not transferred to the developer, and essential conditions for the agreement's execution remained unfulfilled.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to apply Section 50C, a mandatory provision, rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. However, it allowed the assessee to raise objections regarding the application of Section 50C before the CIT(A) or AO.

The Tribunal held that the concept of mutuality did not apply to the transaction as the transferees were nominal members with no voting rights or interest in the society's property. Therefore, the transfer fee was taxable in the hands of the society.

The Tribunal held that since the underlying disallowances or additions were either deleted by the Tribunal in quantum appeals, rectified by the Assessing Officer, or found to lack the element of concealment or inaccurate particulars, the penalties levied were rightly deleted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the gain on pre-payment of deferred sales tax on NPV basis is a capital receipt is to be decided in light of the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT Vs Suzler India Ltd. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 15% of the alleged bogus purchases, considering that the assessee had accounted for sales and made payments through banking channels. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine and rebut it as per Rule 46A. The matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the contributions received by the assessee were in line with its objects as a trade union and therefore could not be treated as business income. These contributions were exempt under Section 10(24) of the Income Tax Act and also on the principle of mutuality.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to apply Section 50C, a mandatory provision, rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. However, it allowed the assessee to raise objections regarding the application of Section 50C before the CIT(A) or AO.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to apply Section 50C, a mandatory provision, rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. However, it allowed the assessee to raise objections regarding the application of Section 50C before the CIT(A) or AO.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted inquiries and was satisfied with the assessee's explanations, making the order not erroneous. Therefore, the CIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263.

The tribunal held that the business was in temporary existence and the assessee exploited its commercial assets. Therefore, disallowing expenses solely due to a market lull and lack of immediate receipts was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the gain on pre-payment of deferred sales tax on NPV basis is a capital receipt is to be decided in light of the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT Vs Suzler India Ltd. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s direction to verify the STPI location for Section 10A deduction was correct. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s power to admit additional claims for expenses if TDS was paid, citing the Pruthvi Brokers case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the rental income should be assessed under the head 'Income from House Property'. This was based on a previous decision of a co-ordinate bench for earlier assessment years with identical facts.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the assessee had established the identity of the creditors and the nature of the transactions as purchases. The AO had not conducted sufficient inquiry to disprove the genuineness of the creditors.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO treating the loans as unexplained credits under Section 68 were not justified and ordered their deletion. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided bank statements, confirmations, ITRs, PANs, and other financial documents, including those of the source of funds. The loans were received through banking channels, and the creditors were assessed to income tax, with their assessments completed under scrutiny. The Tribunal found that the AO could not establish a link that the money had actually travelled from the assessee to the creditors or their source companies. The creditworthiness of the creditors was established. The Tribunal relied on the principle that once the assessee discharges the burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction, the onus shifts to the AO to prove otherwise. The Tribunal cited the Rajasthan High Court in 'Aravali Trading Company' and 'Jai Kumar Bakliwal', the Gujarat High Court in 'Dharmadevi Finance Pvt. Ltd.', and the Supreme Court in 'Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd.' to support its view that the assessee is not required to prove the source of source if the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors are established and transactions are through banking channels. The Tribunal distinguished the facts from the Calcutta High Court's decision in 'Raj Mandir Estates Pvt. Ltd.'. The Tribunal also referred to the jurisdictional Bombay High Court's decision in 'CIT vs. Tania Pvt. Ltd.'.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) needed to be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to lack of specific evidence and clarity on commercial expediency. Similarly, the disallowance under Section 14A was also remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to apply Section 50C, a mandatory provision, rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. However, it allowed the assessee to raise objections regarding the application of Section 50C before the CIT(A) or AO.

The Tribunal held that the rental income should be treated as business income, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the established precedent.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The dismissal was based on the tax effect of the disputed amounts being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circular for appeals before the ITAT.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not follow proper procedure and that there was confusion regarding the assessee's address. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is an investor and not a trader in shares. Profits arising from share transactions should be treated as capital gains, following the precedent set in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the non-compete fee is taxable as business income under Section 28(va) of the Income Tax Act. The decision was based on similar facts in the assessee's husband's case and other precedents.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not discuss all the documentary evidence filed by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the share transaction. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that computer software, as per Income Tax Rules from AY 2003-04, is included in the block of 'computers' and eligible for depreciation at 60%. Software is an integral part of the computer system and not merely a license.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to apply Section 50C, a mandatory provision, rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. However, it allowed the assessee to raise objections regarding the application of Section 50C before the CIT(A) or AO.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the gain on pre-payment of deferred sales tax on NPV basis is a capital receipt is to be decided in light of the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT Vs Suzler India Ltd. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal remitted the issue of interest disallowance to the AO for verification of whether the recipients offered the interest as income. Regarding the rent, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax it as income from house property, but corrected the amount considered.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable even if the cost of the asset was treated as application of income in the year of acquisition. Previous decisions of the Tribunal and the jurisdictional High Court supported this view.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT circular, in case of electronically filed returns, the audit report need not be filed physically with the return but can be submitted during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable.

The Tribunal dismissed the first appeal as time-barred. For the second appeal, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order lacking in discussion regarding TDS provisions and genuineness of payment, hence it was set aside.

The Tribunal dismissed the first appeal as time-barred. For the second appeal, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order lacking in discussion regarding TDS provisions and genuineness of payment, hence it was set aside.