ITAT Mumbai Judgments — September 2016

The Tribunal held that rental income from the property should be assessed as income from house property, following its own precedent for an earlier assessment year. Income from hiring furniture and fixtures should be treated as income from other sources.

The Tribunal held that the subscription fees received by the assessee are taxable as 'Royalty' in India. It followed a previous decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08, which relied on the Karnataka High Court's ruling in the Wipro Ltd. case.

The Tribunal held that the subscription fees received by the assessee are taxable as 'Royalty' in India. It followed a previous decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08, which relied on the Karnataka High Court's ruling in the Wipro Ltd. case.

The Tribunal held that the subscription fees received by the assessee are taxable as 'Royalty' in India. It followed a previous decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08, which relied on the Karnataka High Court's ruling in the Wipro Ltd. case.

The Tribunal held that the subscription fees received by the assessee are taxable as 'Royalty' in India. It followed a previous decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08, which relied on the Karnataka High Court's ruling in the Wipro Ltd. case.

The Tribunal held that the AO violated the principles laid down by the Bombay High Court in Asian Paints Ltd. by rejecting objections and passing the reassessment order on the same day. It also held that reopening based on a retracted statement without corroboration is unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the interest expenditure against house property income was allowable as it was similar to deductions allowed in earlier years. The interest expenditure for business income was also allowed as the lower authorities did not provide credible reasons for denial.

The Tribunal held that in cases where assessments are not abated, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found, the additions made were unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a plausible view after considering the assessee's explanations and supporting evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the issue had been adjudicated by the CIT(A) previously, making the Section 263 invocation impermissible.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) and AO had not examined the documents filed by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored back to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee followed a consistent method of making warranty provisions based on past trends and sales, which was accepted by the AO in earlier and subsequent years. Relying on the principle of consistency and judicial precedents, the Tribunal found no justification to disturb this method.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it on merits. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing returns was due to reasonable cause and not a willful or deliberate attempt by the assessee. Relying on a Supreme Court judgment, it was decided that penalty should not be imposed for technical or venial breaches.

The Tribunal held that the AO violated the principles laid down by the Bombay High Court in Asian Paints Ltd. by rejecting objections and passing the reassessment order on the same day. It also held that reopening based on a retracted statement without corroboration is unsustainable.

The Tribunal restored the issue of lease rentals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, following previous Tribunal directions. For Section 14A, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to exclude stock-in-trade from investments when calculating the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's own funds exceeded the investments, no disallowance on account of interest was permissible. For expenses, the Tribunal noted that investments in group companies for control might be excluded.

The Tribunal held that the damaged machinery still existed and was being used for manufacturing activities. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on the block of assets.

The Tribunal dismissed grounds related to the validity of the notice and assessment proceedings as not pressed. It upheld the addition of Rs. 33 lakhs under Section 69, finding the assessee failed to discharge the onus. However, the enhancement of Rs. 2,67,97,000/- based on seized diary entries was deleted, following a previous ITAT decision.

The Tribunal held that the subscription fees received by the assessee are taxable as 'Royalty' in India. It followed a previous decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08, which relied on the Karnataka High Court's ruling in the Wipro Ltd. case.

The ITAT noted that the Section 263 order, which formed the basis of the assessment, had already been quashed by a coordinate bench. Therefore, the present appeal became infructuous.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal reduced the ad-hoc disallowance on total expenditure to 2% and allowed the commission fee payment, following its own previous orders. The disallowance under Section 14A was also to be adjusted based on prior year's ITAT order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the alternative contention of the Assessing Officer regarding short-term capital gains and unexplained investment. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had deleted the addition made under Section 68, acknowledging the genuineness of sale transactions.

The Tribunal held that the trust deed contained a sufficient dissolution clause and that having both charitable and religious objects does not automatically disqualify a trust for registration under Section 12A, especially when the objects are for the benefit of all persons irrespective of class or creed. The DIT(E)'s order was found to be erroneous.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It was a common ground that the circumstances justifying the deletion of the penalty remained valid.

The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 mandates that appeals with a tax effect of Rs. 10 lakhs and below should be dismissed or not pressed. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantiated the sub-brokerage transactions with documentary evidence, including confirmations and bank statements. The Revenue failed to provide any evidence to prove the alleged dubiousness of the expenses.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of labour charges, finding that payments to individual labourers did not exceed the TDS threshold. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowance for cash payments, as the assessee provided confirmed ledger accounts showing payments below the threshold on multiple dates.

The Tribunal held that the company was the de-facto owner of the cars as it had paid for them and used them for business purposes, even if registered in directors' names. Consequently, depreciation, car insurance, interest on car loans, and motor car expenses were allowed.

The Tribunal found the Revenue's approach unreasonable, stating the assessee had adduced sufficient evidence for the bank account's business transactions. However, it noted potential issues with credits other than cash and the turnover exceeding the credit, remanding the case for a fresh assessment.

The ITAT allowed the assessee to raise additional legal grounds. The tribunal found that the assessment order was passed before the hearing date, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition of Rs. 7,22,500/-. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the purchases from M/s. Dhanraj Marketing.

The Tribunal restored the issues concerning disallowance of rebate under Section 88E and ex-gratia payment to directors under Section 36(1)(ii) back to the AO for fresh consideration. The addition under Section 68 was also restored to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the company's lack of awareness and director issues. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing by the CIT before passing the Section 263 order and restored the matter for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own previous rulings in the assessee's own cases for earlier years. It was held that if net worth exceeds investments yielding exempt income, investments are presumed to be from own funds, and no interest disallowance is warranted.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to intervene. The CIT(A)'s approach of estimating profit on alleged bogus purchases was deemed reasonable and supported by High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that the exclusion of SPPL's share of revenue was incorrect, as previous years' decisions in the assessee's own case, including High Court affirmation, supported the assessee's position. The deduction under Section 80IB(10) was therefore allowed.

The Tribunal held that the exclusion of SPPL's share of revenue was incorrect, as previous years' decisions in the assessee's own case, including High Court affirmation, supported the assessee's position. The deduction under Section 80IB(10) was therefore allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove that the non-payment was due to circumstances beyond their control or a genuine financial crunch. The Tribunal also noted that penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, finding that the transactions were part of a normal business relationship and a running account between the assessee and EBPL for share trading. The Tribunal agreed that Section 2(22)(e) was not attracted as the funds were used for business purposes and not for individual benefit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary burden of proof by providing evidence of agricultural land, an agreement for cultivation, and confirmation from the cultivator. Following its own prior order for a similar assessment year, the Tribunal found no justification for rejecting the claim.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It upheld the penalty on the recovery of bad debts and disallowance of donation, but cancelled the penalty on employee contributions to PF/ESIC.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular dated 01.08.2012 was prospective and applicable from Assessment Year 2013-14 onwards. Therefore, it could not be applied to the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular dated 01.08.2012 was prospective and applicable from Assessment Year 2013-14 onwards. Therefore, it could not be applied to the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 144 days, citing the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the exclusion of SPPL's share of revenue was incorrect, as previous years' decisions in the assessee's own case, including High Court affirmation, supported the assessee's position. The deduction under Section 80IB(10) was therefore allowed.

The Tribunal held that the exclusion of SPPL's share of revenue was incorrect, as previous years' decisions in the assessee's own case, including High Court affirmation, supported the assessee's position. The deduction under Section 80IB(10) was therefore allowed.

The Tribunal held that Section 69C is not applicable as the source of funds for purchases was not disputed. It affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the profit element embedded in the purchases, not the entire amount, as the material was used in manufacturing.

The Tribunal held that Patvolk was an agent of independent status as per Article 5(6) of the India-Netherlands DTAA. Consequently, the assessee did not have a PE in India, and its income was not taxable in India. The Tribunal also ruled that interest under Section 234B is not applicable to non-resident assessees whose income is subject to withholding tax.

The Tribunal held that Patvolk was an agent of independent status as per Article 5(6) of the India-Netherlands DTAA. Consequently, the assessee did not have a PE in India, and its income was not taxable in India. The Tribunal also ruled that interest under Section 234B is not applicable to non-resident assessees whose income is subject to withholding tax.