ITAT Mumbai Judgments — September 2016

The tribunal held that provisions of Section 195 of the Act do not apply to transactions between two non-residents, allowing the appeal on this ground. It also directed the AO to verify and delete additions made for transponder hire charges if the assessee had already made a disallowance.

The Tribunal upheld the classification of share transaction income as business income. It also dismissed the ground challenging the disallowance of interest expenditure as misconceived, as the AO had allowed it. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was partly allowed, with the interest component being deleted but the 0.5% of investment value upheld.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition based solely on Sales Tax Department information without independent inquiry was not sustainable. The assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing supporting documents and consistent gross profit ratios were accepted in previous audits.

The Tribunal allowed deduction for vehicle registration charges as revenue expenditure and directed the AO to allow PF dues paid before the return filing date. However, disallowances for increase in share capital and stamp duty charges were confirmed.

The tribunal held that provisions of Section 195 of the Act do not apply to transactions between two non-residents, allowing the appeal on this ground. It also directed the AO to verify and delete additions made for transponder hire charges if the assessee had already made a disallowance.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the cash credits were explained by investments from the assessee's close family members for the purchase of a flat. The Tribunal also found no merit in the Revenue's contention regarding the admission of additional evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on all grounds. It found that the CIT(A) had correctly considered the evidence for bad debts, the nature of interest charges, the business loss arising from merchant banking activities, and the timely deposit of PF/ESIC contributions.

The tribunal held that provisions of Section 195 of the Act do not apply to transactions between two non-residents, allowing the appeal on this ground. It also directed the AO to verify and delete additions made for transponder hire charges if the assessee had already made a disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanations regarding the service tax liability and the mistake in computing the long-term capital loss were bonafide. The Tribunal found that the assessee had recorded actual sale consideration in his books and that Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) would apply.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to recompute the assessee's profitability for transfer pricing after considering allowances/disallowances. The issue of interest income addition was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case, set aside most of the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. However, one ground regarding dividend and interest income was dismissed, and another regarding Section 220(2) was to be examined by the AO.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case, set aside most of the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. However, one ground regarding dividend and interest income was dismissed, and another regarding Section 220(2) was to be examined by the AO.

The Tribunal held that disallowing depreciation in AY 2005-06 and AY 2006-07, after the assessee suo motu reduced the insurance claim in AY 2007-08, constituted double disallowance. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that disallowing depreciation in AY 2005-06 and AY 2006-07, after the assessee suo motu reduced the insurance claim in AY 2007-08, constituted double disallowance. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's contentions needed verification and restored the matter to the AO/ACIT(CPC). The AO was directed to verify income and TDS credit across multiple assessment years to ensure correct taxation and prevent double credit.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without proper opportunity for hearing. Following similar past decisions, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had factually proved the amount was never received and the civil suits making the allegation were withdrawn. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on overseas tours of doctors, after the introduction of pharmaceutical products and establishment of their uses, is considered sales promotion and advertisement expenses. Such expenses are hit by the explanation to Section 37 of the Act and are not allowable as deductions.

The Tribunal held that the words 'where the property is let' in Sections 23(1)(b) and 23(1)(c) refer to a state of actual letting and cannot be extended to 'intended letting'. The annual value is to be computed based on the potential rental value, irrespective of actual letting, unless specific conditions for vacancy remission are met.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to insurance companies as their income is computed under Section 44 read with the First Schedule. Consequently, expenses related to exempt income were not disallowed, and dividend income was allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of substantial justice, the issue of the write-off of sundry balances needs to be set aside and restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo examination. The Assessing Officer will adjudicate the issue on merits after providing a proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to insurance companies as their income is computed under Section 44 read with the First Schedule. Consequently, expenses related to exempt income were not disallowed, and dividend income was allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal decided to admit additional evidence for the loan transactions and restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for de-novo determination. Grounds related to business expenses were dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the salary expenses were allowable as revenue expenditure in the assessment year they were incurred, as they represented an ascertained liability. The issue of classifying interest income was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on overseas tours of doctors, after the introduction of pharmaceutical products and establishment of their uses, is considered sales promotion and advertisement expenses. Such expenses are hit by the explanation to Section 37 of the Act and are not allowable as deductions.

The Tribunal held that the transfer agreement should be considered a gift agreement, and the transactions are covered by Section 47(iii). It found no case for invoking Sections 2(22)(a), 115-O, or 56(2)(vii) against the assessees and disapproved the 'colourable device' allegation.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of accounts solely based on a director's statement, which was later retracted, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the transactions were supported by audited accounts, quantitative details, and customs verification.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of accounts solely based on a director's statement, which was later retracted, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the transactions were supported by audited accounts, quantitative details, and customs verification.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of accounts solely based on a director's statement, which was later retracted, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the transactions were supported by audited accounts, quantitative details, and customs verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause due to the CA's non-cooperation. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present its case with all evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee provided a bonafide explanation for not including the rental income, as it belonged to her son who was a co-owner. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the activity of running a pharmacy shop within a hospital is incidental and ancillary to the hospital's main object of providing medical relief. Following its own previous decisions in similar cases, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that since the issue of determining ALV was restored to the AO by a previous ITAT order, the penalty proceedings based on the original assessment were not sustainable. The penalty was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had exceeded his jurisdiction by levying the fee under Section 234E while processing the statement under Section 200A before June 1, 2015. However, a separate order levying such fee was permissible.

The Tribunal held that the AO misunderstood the provisions of Section 35(1)(i) and that the payee was not required to be a certified entity for expenses incurred after the commencement of business. The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of infrastructure and genuine research activities.

The tribunal held that no disallowance of interest was called for as own funds exceeded investments. For indirect expenses, the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 3,51,720/-, including the suo motu disallowance.

The Tribunal held that commission income from providing accommodation entries should be assessed at 0.15% of total receipts, following its own precedents in similar cases involving group concerns. Business expenses were also to be considered.

The Tribunal held that commission income from providing accommodation entries should be assessed at 0.15% of total receipts, following its own precedents in similar cases involving group concerns. Business expenses were also to be considered.

The Tribunal held that commission income from providing accommodation entries should be assessed at 0.15% of total receipts, following its own precedents in similar cases involving group concerns. Business expenses were also to be considered.

The Tribunal held that commission income from providing accommodation entries should be assessed at 0.15% of total receipts, following its own precedents in similar cases involving group concerns. Business expenses were also to be considered.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's sister, acting on her behalf, bona fide relied on the bank's certificate. Considering the peculiar facts and the assessee's medical condition, the intention to conceal or furnish inaccurate particulars was not established.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had provided sufficient opportunities for hearing, but the assessee failed to appear. Regarding the addition, the Tribunal allowed the ground in principle, remitting the matter to the AO for verification of tax paid on the disputed amount in subsequent years.

The Tribunal allowed the first ground, remanding the issue of interest expenses to the AO for reconsideration with additional evidence. The second ground regarding motor car expenses was dismissed as the 20% disallowance was deemed reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction under Section 154 to rectify an order giving effect to the CIT(A)'s order, as it amounted to indirectly rectifying the appellate authority's decision. The Tribunal also noted that the issue was debatable and not a mistake apparent from the record.

The Tribunal held that similar issues in group concern cases were decided by the Tribunal, allowing commission income at 0.15% of total receipts. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the income accordingly.

The Tribunal held that similar issues in group concern cases were decided by the Tribunal, allowing commission income at 0.15% of total receipts. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the income accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the issue was a legal one and did not require further factual investigation. It remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) to admit the ground and adjudicate it on merits, considering the Supreme Court's judgment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee complied with the conditions of Section 54F and that the gift of shares and subsequent sale to third parties were not invalid. The mere fact that tax was saved did not make the transaction a colorable device.

The Tribunal found that there was a lack of clarity regarding the recipient of the fees and whether they constituted 'interest' under the Act. The Tribunal also noted potential violations of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT for fresh adjudication.