ITAT Mumbai Judgments — November 2016

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in adopting Stamp Duty Valuation over the DVO's valuation for capital gains. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s direction to verify local purchase and brokerage expenses for capital gains computation.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakh for filing appeals before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect involved was less than Rs. 10.00 lac, which was the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.

The Tribunal held that the DIT(E)'s order was not prejudicial to the interest of revenue. This was based on the reasoning that the income assessed in the original order and the income sought to be assessed after revision would be the same, thus having no revenue effect.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and failed to address several contentions raised by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the income earned from leasing industrial premises along with supporting infrastructure and services constituted business income, not income from house property.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty was ex-parte and lacked proper reasoning. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue was remitted back to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received the necessary relief from the Assessing Officer and therefore the appeal had become infructuous. The assessee desired to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal held that contributions received by the trade union from employers, pursuant to settlement agreements for resolving disputes, are not business or professional income. These contributions are considered voluntary and fall under the ambit of Section 10(24) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal noted that appeals with a tax effect of Rs. 10 lakhs and below are to be dismissed or not pressed as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that certain additions made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained expenditure should be allowed to be adjusted against a voluntary disclosure. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions by the CIT(A) as the revenue failed to provide evidence to controvert the finding that the entries did not belong to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that certain additions made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained expenditure should be allowed to be adjusted against a voluntary disclosure. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions by the CIT(A) as the revenue failed to provide evidence to controvert the finding that the entries did not belong to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that contributions received by the trade union from employers, pursuant to settlement agreements for resolving disputes, are not business or professional income. These contributions are considered voluntary and fall under the ambit of Section 10(24) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the date of allotment letter should be considered the date of acquisition for determining long-term capital gains, following a CBDT circular. The Tribunal also directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee regarding proportionate share and cost of improvement.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal was restored to the AO for fresh verification as the initial assessment was made without proper verification. Consequently, the penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that certain additions made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained expenditure should be allowed to be adjusted against a voluntary disclosure. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions by the CIT(A) as the revenue failed to provide evidence to controvert the finding that the entries did not belong to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the assessment order did not indicate any incriminating material for the increased income. The CIT(A) had passed the order ex-parte, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that certain additions made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained expenditure should be allowed to be adjusted against a voluntary disclosure. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions by the CIT(A) as the revenue failed to provide evidence to controvert the finding that the entries did not belong to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets a monetary limit for appeals. The circular is retrospective and applicable to pending appeals.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s direction to compute the long-term capital gain/loss based on the market value of the flat, finding no infirmity. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of the addition of cash deposits, agreeing that the assessee had explained the cash balance with declared income.

The Tribunal held that contributions received by the trade union from employers, pursuant to settlement agreements for resolving disputes, are not business or professional income. These contributions are considered voluntary and fall under the ambit of Section 10(24) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that contributions received by the trade union from employers, pursuant to settlement agreements for resolving disputes, are not business or professional income. These contributions are considered voluntary and fall under the ambit of Section 10(24) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that contributions received by the trade union from employers, pursuant to settlement agreements for resolving disputes, are not business or professional income. These contributions are considered voluntary and fall under the ambit of Section 10(24) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the AO's best judgment assessment was based on incorrect information regarding the plot number and the extent of construction. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not provide the assessee with the information received from the Municipal Corporation before making the assessment.

The Tribunal held that contributions received by the trade union from employers, pursuant to settlement agreements for resolving disputes, are not business or professional income. These contributions are considered voluntary and fall under the ambit of Section 10(24) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was indeed non-speaking and did not discuss the facts of the case. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for the same assessment years was previously dismissed by the ITAT. However, a crucial order from the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) concerning the NCDs was not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on the TDS issue related to NCD interest.

The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for the same assessment years was previously dismissed by the ITAT. However, a crucial order from the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) concerning the NCDs was not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on the TDS issue related to NCD interest.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's income was not taxable in India under Article 9 of the DTAA, following earlier decisions in its own case and that of the Bombay High Court. It was also held that the assessee did not have a PE in India, and Inland Haulage Charges were not taxable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's income was not taxable in India under Article 9 of the DTAA, following earlier decisions in its own case and that of the Bombay High Court. It was also held that the assessee did not have a PE in India, and Inland Haulage Charges were not taxable.

The Tribunal held that since the addition was made on an estimation basis after rejecting the books of accounts, and there was no concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not attracted.

The Tribunal held that losses arising from forward contracts backed by export receivables are allowable as they are for hedging business risk. Losses not directly backed by receivables but by confirmed export orders and stock require further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not follow the jurisdictional High Court's decision on determining the annual letting value. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that losses arising from forward contracts backed by export receivables are allowable as they are for hedging business risk. Losses not directly backed by receivables but by confirmed export orders and stock require further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the payments for channel placement charges were in the nature of carrying out broadcasting and telecasting work, thus falling under Section 194C. The Tribunal agreed with the lower appellate authority that there was no short deduction of tax by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the revised return was filed voluntarily before any notice was issued by the department and the additional income offered was accepted. Therefore, it could not be said that there was a conscious or deliberate act to conceal income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee inflated purchases by obtaining accommodation entries, leading to suppression of sales. Following precedents, the Tribunal affirmed the addition made by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal noted the repeated non-compliance by the assessee in responding to notices and appearing for hearings. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal noted that a previous order in the assessee's own case had deleted the quantum addition under Section 41(1) by rectifying a mistake apparent from the record. Since the penalty was levied on this deleted addition, the penalty itself would not survive.

The Tribunal held that making a claim that is not sustainable in law does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the penalty.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakh for appeals before the ITAT, as per CBDT instruction. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, following its own decision in the assessee's own case for the preceding assessment year. The loss on forward contracts was considered a genuine business loss.

The assessee company, through its Director, formally withdrew the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal did not adjudicate on the merits of the grounds raised.

The Tribunal held that while the deposits might represent business transactions, it was not proper to assess the entire receipts as income. Instead, the income arising from these transactions should be estimated.

The Tribunal held that the reduction in the value of investments held as stock-in-trade is an actual valuation loss and not merely a provision. Therefore, it is a deductible business loss.

The Tribunal held that the reduction in the value of investments held as stock-in-trade is an actual valuation loss and not merely a provision. Therefore, it is a deductible business loss.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 6/2016, if an assessee treats income from transfer of listed shares held for more than 12 months as capital gains, the Assessing Officer cannot dispute it. The assessee's stand, once taken, must be consistently applied.

The Tribunal held that the additions related to unserved or unreconciled purchase notices were not justified. However, a portion of labour and off-loading expenses were sustained as 25% disallowance due to inherent discrepancies. The issue of commission payments was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the reopening of assessment was justified as the issue of Section 14A disallowance was not consciously examined during the original assessment. The disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was also confirmed as justified.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, restricting the disallowance under Section 14A to Rs. 1,00,000 and restoring the issue of excess material consumption to the AO. The revenue's appeal was also partly allowed regarding the inclusion of waste income for Section 80IC deduction.