ITAT Mumbai Judgments — November 2016

The Tribunal held that the reimbursements were purely on a cost-to-cost basis without any profit element and thus not taxable as royalty or fees for technical services. Interest under Section 234B was also directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that foreign travel expenses for agents were not income in their hands and thus not subject to TDS under Section 194D. It also held that payments for annual maintenance and routine repairs were correctly subjected to TDS under Section 194C, not Section 194J.

The Tribunal held that foreign travel expenses for agents were not income in their hands and thus not subject to TDS under Section 194D. It also held that payments for annual maintenance and routine repairs were correctly subjected to TDS under Section 194C, not Section 194J.

The Tribunal held that foreign travel expenses for agents were not income in their hands and thus not subject to TDS under Section 194D. It also held that payments for annual maintenance and routine repairs were correctly subjected to TDS under Section 194C, not Section 194J.

The Tribunal held that when GP/NP rates are comparable and sales figures are not disputed, the entire purchases should not be disallowed. Instead, an ad-hoc disallowance representing the profit element is reasonable.

The Tribunal held that in cases of bogus purchases where GP/NP rates are comparable and sales are not disputed, only a portion of the purchases representing the profit element should be disallowed. The Tribunal directed a 10% disallowance on the original disputed amount and remitted one party's case back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that foreign travel expenses for agents were not income in their hands and thus not subject to TDS under Section 194D. It also held that payments for annual maintenance and routine repairs were correctly subjected to TDS under Section 194C, not Section 194J.

The Tribunal held that foreign travel expenses for agents were not income in their hands and thus not subject to TDS under Section 194D. It also held that payments for annual maintenance and routine repairs were correctly subjected to TDS under Section 194C, not Section 194J.

The Tribunal held that foreign travel expenses for agents were not income in their hands and thus not subject to TDS under Section 194D. It also held that payments for annual maintenance and routine repairs were correctly subjected to TDS under Section 194C, not Section 194J.

The Tribunal held that foreign travel expenses for agents were not income in their hands and thus not subject to TDS under Section 194D. It also held that payments for annual maintenance and routine repairs were correctly subjected to TDS under Section 194C, not Section 194J.

The Tribunal followed its previous decisions in the assessee's own cases for preceding assessment years where similar disallowances under Section 14A read with Rule 8D were deleted. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the cash credits and the creditworthiness of the persons from whom the money was allegedly received. The explanation of land deals was considered an afterthought.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not proper because the assessee had explained that the bank account was jointly held with her father, a Chartered Accountant, and he was aware of the transactions. This explanation was not properly considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of cost of improvement expenses and wages, and the classification of property sale profit as capital gains. However, it restored the issue of interest disallowance to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and directed the CIT(A) to admit an additional ground regarding computation of business income.

The Tribunal held that foreign travel expenses for agents were not income in their hands and thus not subject to TDS under Section 194D. It also held that payments for annual maintenance and routine repairs were correctly subjected to TDS under Section 194C, not Section 194J.

The Tribunal held that foreign travel expenses for agents were not income in their hands and thus not subject to TDS under Section 194D. It also held that payments for annual maintenance and routine repairs were correctly subjected to TDS under Section 194C, not Section 194J.

The Tribunal held that foreign travel expenses for agents were not income in their hands and thus not subject to TDS under Section 194D. It also held that payments for annual maintenance and routine repairs were correctly subjected to TDS under Section 194C, not Section 194J.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of interest disallowance, finding sufficient funds available with the assessee. For bogus purchases, the Tribunal reduced the disallowance from 23% to 15% of the total impugned purchases.

The Tribunal held that foreign travel expenses for agents were not income in their hands and thus not subject to TDS under Section 194D. It also held that payments for annual maintenance and routine repairs were correctly subjected to TDS under Section 194C, not Section 194J.

The Tribunal held that foreign travel expenses for agents were not income in their hands and thus not subject to TDS under Section 194D. It also held that payments for annual maintenance and routine repairs were correctly subjected to TDS under Section 194C, not Section 194J.

The Tribunal held that foreign travel expenses for agents were not income in their hands and thus not subject to TDS under Section 194D. It also held that payments for annual maintenance and routine repairs were correctly subjected to TDS under Section 194C, not Section 194J.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion during the original assessment and that reopening the assessment after four years was not justified without new tangible material. The Tribunal found that the assessee had made a full and true disclosure of material facts.

The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) is not attracted when the expenditure has not been debited to the profit and loss account and thus not claimed as an expense. The issue regarding Bisi payments was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) is not attracted when the expenditure has not been debited to the profit and loss account and thus not claimed as an expense. The issue regarding Bisi payments was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that no evidence of concealed income was found, and the addition was purely on an estimate basis. The offer was made to buy peace, and similar penalties were not levied in other years or for the Karta. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own precedents in similar cases involving the same group of companies. The Tribunal found that the assessee's group was involved in providing accommodation entries and earned commission income, which was accepted at 0.15%.

The tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to treat short-term capital gains as business income, citing a precedent in the assessee's own case. For Section 14A disallowances, the tribunal ruled that it should not exceed the exempt income earned.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to contest the penalty, citing a violation of the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including confirmations and ledger accounts, to substantiate the sundry creditors and wages/labour expenses. No discrepancies were found by the AO during the remand enquiry.

The Tribunal found that the AO had not conducted sufficient inquiries and relied on unsubstantiated claims from share brokers. Consequently, the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were not sustained.

The Tribunal found that the issue of non-furnishing reasons for reopening required fresh consideration, involving both factual and legal aspects. The Tribunal noted that assessment records were untraceable, complicating factual verification.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, holding that gains from repeated share transactions were rightly treated as business income, not capital gains. The disallowance under Section 14A was also upheld due to lack of contrary material from the assessee.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable on the difference between the DVO's valuation and the actual sale consideration, as it arises from a deeming fiction under Section 50C. However, penalty is sustained on the difference between the actual sale consideration and the purchase price due to concealment of income from the sale of industrial land.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's workings for disallowance as most investments were brought forward. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not objectively examine the assessee's methodology. The disallowance made by the assessee was deemed reasonable.

The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench decision, held that the issue was covered and allowed the appeal. The matter was set aside and restored to the AO/ACIT(CPC) for verification of contentions and correct credit of TDS.

The Tribunal held that the payment received by the assessee was for the transfer of rights over the property, not for a finalized sale. Therefore, it was to be assessed as income from other sources.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the respective appeals was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 10 lakh. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's voluntary reduction of the loss claim before detection, coupled with the tax-neutral nature of the entry for the current year, indicated a bonafide mistake. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Revenue did not press the first ground, and the second ground had a tax effect below Rs. 10 lakhs. Following CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of bogus purchases was unsustainable as the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries and relied solely on Sales Tax Department information. The Tribunal also deleted the ad-hoc addition of profit on alleged bogus purchases.

The tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation on unpaid customs duty and the addition of notional interest, finding the assessee's explanations unsatisfactory. The claim for professional fees was also deemed premature. However, the deletion of the addition for reversal of provision for doubtful debts by the lower appellate authority was confirmed.

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to the disallowance of travelling/telephone expenses and loan processing charges. It also dismissed the claim for Section 54 benefit. However, it remanded the issue of Section 54F benefit for the LTCG arising from the sale of gold, diamonds, and tenancy rights back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of bogus purchases was unsustainable as the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries and relied solely on Sales Tax Department information. The Tribunal also deleted the ad-hoc addition of profit on alleged bogus purchases.

The Tribunal held that LIBOR plus 2% is the appropriate arm's length interest rate for benchmarking interest-free loans to an AE, following its previous decisions. It also held that the addition of a 3% risk premium by the AO was not justified.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment was bad in law as it was based on a mere change of opinion without any new material. The assessee's consistent practice of not treating unrealized gains/losses as income/expense was also considered.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's voluntary reduction of the loss claim before detection, coupled with the tax-neutral nature of the entry for the current year, indicated a bonafide mistake. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider additional evidence submitted by the assessee and did not provide adequate opportunity for a hearing. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the payment for sub-lease rights was akin to acquiring ownership rights and not rent, thus not covered by Section 194-I. The payment for infrastructure facilities was held to be covered under Section 194-C, and this issue was remanded to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the addition for notional interest on delayed export receivables was not justified as the assessee did not charge interest to non-associated enterprises either. It also held that brought forward losses should be set off after allowing the Section 10AA exemption. The claim for credit of FBT was allowed.