ITAT Mumbai Judgments — January 2017

The Tribunal held that the penalty on the cash credit addition would not survive as the addition itself was deleted by the Tribunal in a prior appeal. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 3,80,816/- on account of unexplained deposits was unsustainable as it contradicted the CIT(A)'s own findings regarding the assessee's business and purchases. The ground regarding the unsecured loan was dismissed for not being pressed.

The Tribunal held that there was only a change in the head of income from STCG to business income, and no inaccurate particulars were furnished. Following the Bombay High Court's decision in Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since a co-ordinate bench had already deleted the addition of Rs. 15,00,000 made under Section 68 in the assessee's quantum appeal, the basis for the penalty no longer survived. Consequently, the penalty was quashed.

The Tribunal followed its previous orders and held that the entire advertisement expenses were revenue in nature. For additions to fixed assets, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration with directions to allow the assessee to submit evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had voluntarily declared the income, and there was no evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was wrongly levied.

The Tribunal found the recent CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2016 regarding the taxability of consortium members to be relevant. Since the DRP had finalized its decision before this circular was issued, the issue was remanded to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the deletion of disallowances for repair and maintenance expenses and the direction to rework adjustments under Section 145A. The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest paid to relatives under Section 40A(2)(b) was not justified. It followed its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, which had allowed such claims.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS under Section 194A as its turnover in the preceding year did not exceed Rs. 40 lakhs. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) was incorrect.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance made under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, confirming the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee failed to provide material evidence to controvert the findings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the donations were adequately explained and the lease agreement for premises was genuine. It concluded that there was no diversion of funds for the benefit of interested parties and the trust was entitled to exemption.

The Tribunal held that the indexed cost of acquisition should be computed with reference to the year in which the previous owner first held the asset, not the year the assessee became the owner. This was based on a High Court judgment.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the AO must record satisfaction and obtain the assessee's explanation before invoking Section 14A. Since the facts were identical to previous years where the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, the appeal was allowed.

The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the AO to re-compute the penalty from the date of tax payment to the date of filing the return, following a precedent. The Tribunal upheld the FAA's order.

The Tribunal held that brand building expenses are revenue in nature, following a coordinate bench decision. Regarding Section 14A, the issue was remanded for verification. The Tribunal ruled that interest under Section 234B was not leviable as advance tax was paid based on the law prevalent at that time.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not discharge the onus of explaining the nature and source of the cash credits. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the order for the quantum addition, which formed the basis for charging interest under Section 201(1A), had been set aside and confirmed by a coordinate bench of the ITAT. Therefore, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue had become infructuous.

The Tribunal held that employees' contributions to PF and ESIC, if paid after the due date, are not deductible under Section 36(1)(va). The damages and interest paid for late payments were also confirmed as disallowable as they were penal in nature.

The Tribunal found that the tax authorities did not properly consider the assessee's explanations regarding past savings and gifts from parents. The issue was therefore set aside for fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal found a contradiction in the CIT(A)'s order regarding whether the assessee's submissions were considered. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the case was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the AO were identical to those decided in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year. Following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that employees' contributions to PF and ESIC, if paid after the due date, are not deductible under Section 36(1)(va). The damages and interest paid for late payments were also confirmed as disallowable as they were penal in nature.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding disallowance under Section 14A as not pressed. For the AO's appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the ground regarding employee separation cost, upholding the FAA's order. The Tribunal also dismissed the AO's ground regarding depreciation on revised WDV of assets acquired from the holding company, following a previous precedent.

The tribunal held that the assessee had understated and concealed particulars of income by not offering sales for the current year, despite the sales being affected in AY 2005-06 and the assessee following the mercantile system of accounting. This justified the penalty.

The Tribunal held that brand building expenses are revenue in nature, following a coordinate bench decision. Regarding Section 14A, the issue was remanded for verification. The Tribunal ruled that interest under Section 234B was not leviable as advance tax was paid based on the law prevalent at that time.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, treating the income from TDR sale as business income. This was based on a previous decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2004-05, which was prior to the amendment of Section 55A(a) in 2012, the AO could not refer the matter to the DVO when the assessee's adopted FMV was higher than the value determined by the DVO. The reference made by the AO was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the guarantee commission received by the assessee did not accrue or arise in India and was not taxable in India under the Income Tax Act or the DTAA. The Tribunal followed its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.

The Tribunal held that running a pharmacy shop is incidental to the attainment of the trust's objects, which include running a hospital. Therefore, the income from the pharmacy is eligible for exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2004-05, which was prior to the amendment of Section 55A(a) in 2012, the AO could not refer the matter to the DVO when the assessee's adopted FMV was higher than the value determined by the DVO. The reference made by the AO was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the film 'Traffic Signal' was released in the last quarter of the financial year 2006-2007, and the excess expenditure over revenue was allowable in the impugned assessment year as per Rule 9A. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2004-05, which was prior to the amendment of Section 55A(a) in 2012, the AO could not refer the matter to the DVO when the assessee's adopted FMV was higher than the value determined by the DVO. The reference made by the AO was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2004-05, which was prior to the amendment of Section 55A(a) in 2012, the AO could not refer the matter to the DVO when the assessee's adopted FMV was higher than the value determined by the DVO.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2004-05, which was prior to the amendment of Section 55A(a) in 2012, the AO could not refer the matter to the DVO when the assessee's adopted FMV was higher than the value determined by the DVO. The reference made by the AO was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2004-05, which was prior to the amendment of Section 55A in 2012, the AO could not refer the matter to the DVO when the assessee's adopted FMV was higher than the value determined by the DVO. The reference made by the AO was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that interest on a loan for a property treated as a current asset and later sold for business income should not be disallowed. It also upheld the deletion of sundry debtors as an advance received from a regular customer.

The Departmental Representative conceded that the tax involved was less than Rs. 10.00 lacs. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing TDS returns was a technical default and not deliberate. Given the reasonable cause explained and the lack of revenue loss, the penalty was not justified.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including commissioning approvals and electricity bills showing initial generation, to justify the depreciation claim.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2004-05, which was prior to the amendment of Section 55A(a) in 2012, the AO could not refer the matter to the DVO when the assessee's adopted FMV was higher than the value determined by the DVO. The reference made by the AO was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2004-05, which was prior to the amendment of Section 55A(a) in 2012, the AO could not refer the matter to the DVO when the assessee's adopted FMV was higher than the value determined by the DVO. The reference made by the AO was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2004-05, which was prior to the amendment of Section 55A(a) in 2012, the AO could not refer the matter to the DVO when the assessee's adopted FMV was higher than the value determined by the DVO. The reference made by the AO was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2004-05, which was prior to the amendment of Section 55A(a) in 2012, the AO could not refer the matter to the DVO when the assessee's adopted FMV was higher than the value determined by the DVO. The reference made by the AO was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2004-05, which was prior to the amendment of Section 55A(a) in 2012, the AO could not refer the matter to the DVO when the assessee's adopted FMV was higher than the value determined by the DVO. The reference made by the AO was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2004-05, which was prior to the amendment of Section 55A(a) in 2012, the AO could not refer the matter to the DVO when the assessee's adopted FMV was higher than the value determined by the DVO. The reference made by the AO was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2004-05, which was prior to the amendment of Section 55A(a) in 2012, the AO could not refer the matter to the DVO when the assessee's adopted FMV was higher than the value determined by the DVO. The reference made by the AO was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2004-05, which was prior to the amendment of Section 55A(a) in 2012, the AO could not refer the matter to the DVO when the assessee's adopted FMV was higher than the value determined by the DVO. The reference made by the AO was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that mere letting out of a property does not constitute a 'transfer' under Section 45(2) of the IT Act. Furthermore, Section 50C is not applicable to the transfer of tenancy rights as it specifically applies to land or building.