ITAT Mumbai Judgments — February 2017

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence filed before the CIT(A) should have been considered as per the principle of natural justice. The appeal was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication after considering the evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the penalty. The assessee had provided purchase bills, vouchers, and made payments via account payee cheques, and the Revenue could not controvert these facts.

The Tribunal held that the entire purchase could not be disallowed solely based on a supplier's initial statement, especially when purchases were recorded in books and material utilization was not disputed. Credit for TDS/advance tax was to be examined and granted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was concluded before the search and no incriminating material was found, the AO could not disturb the concluded assessment under Section 153A. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable when additions are made solely by invoking the deeming provisions of Section 50C, especially when the assessee has provided all relevant documents. The conduct of the assessee was not contumacious.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) to provide the assessee an opportunity for a hearing on merit, considering the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's belief that the bonus did not accrue for the period ending March 31, 2009, was bonafide, especially since the employer did not deduct TDS until after the return was filed. Therefore, the assessee could not be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had usurped the powers of the Charity Commissioner by making a decision that the assessee had breached the provisions of the scheme formulated by the Bombay High Court. The Tribunal noted that Section 11 of the Income Tax Act does not stipulate adherence by an assessee to such a scheme. The primary requirement for exemption under Section 11 is the appropriation of more than 85% of earnings towards charitable purposes, which the assessee had complied with by utilizing approximately 88% of its earnings. The Tribunal emphasized that the determination of whether the assessee violated the scheme is within the purview of the Charity Commissioner, not the Income Tax authorities. It relied on the principle that tax authorities cannot sit in judgment over the implementation of public policy by the authorities empowered to implement them. The Tribunal found no evidence that the Charity Commissioner had taken an adverse view against the assessee or revoked its registration. Therefore, the AO's denial of exemption was considered unwarranted. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, appeals with a tax effect of Rs. 10 lacs or less should not be filed and pending appeals falling under this category should be withdrawn or not pressed. The circular is applicable retrospectively.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was concluded before the search and no incriminating material was found, the addition made under Section 153A was not justified. Consequently, the penalty levied was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it, violating Rule 46A. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that additional evidence submitted by the assessee was vital to determine if the commission pertained to AY 2009-10 or 2010-11. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeals were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) would not survive. The penalty was deleted following previous decisions of the Tribunal in similar group cases.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeals were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) would not survive. The penalty was deleted following previous decisions of the Tribunal in similar group cases.

The Tribunal allowed the production of additional evidence and remanded the case back to the AO. The AO was directed to re-assess the matter considering the new evidence regarding the fair market value of the property and the claim under Section 54F.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) were applicable as the loan was advanced by a company (M/s. Gazebo Developers Pvt. Ltd.) to a concern (M/s. Om Sidhivinayak Creations Pvt. Ltd.) in which the assessee, a substantial shareholder of the lender company, also had a substantial interest. The addition was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the exempt dividend income.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law as the AO failed to follow the prescribed procedure, including not passing a speaking order on objections and initiating proceedings based on audit objections without independent satisfaction. The Tribunal also noted that reassessment cannot be used to review earlier opinions.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is applicable only when exempt income is actually received. Since the assessee did not earn any exempt income, the disallowance was wrongly confirmed.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A was not required as the assessee had sufficient own funds and the AO did not record objective satisfaction. Regarding Section 50C, it was held that it cannot be applied to determine the WDV of a block of assets, as it is only for computing capital gains.

The Tribunal held that 8% net profit on total turnover is reasonable, following the Settlement Commission's order in the assessee's own case and the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The addition was confirmed to the extent of Rs. 5,51,541/-.

The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in a similar case, held that the assessee was not part of an AOP. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee regarding its inclusion in the AOP were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal decided that the findings in the lead case would apply mutatis mutandis to all the current appeals. Additional grounds raised by the assessees, except for one specific case, were not pressed and were dismissed.

The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in a similar case, held that the assessee was not part of an AOP. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee regarding its inclusion in the AOP were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal allowed the bad debts claim, following previous High Court decisions. For the payments to clients, it held that preserving business reputation through such voluntary payments, even without legal obligation, is allowable as business expenditure or business loss.

The Tribunal decided that the findings in the lead case would apply mutatis mutandis to all the current appeals. Additional grounds raised by the assessees, except for one specific case, were not pressed and were dismissed.

The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in a similar case, held that the assessee was not part of an AOP. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee regarding its inclusion in the AOP were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal restored all grounds of appeal to the AO for fresh adjudication due to the CIT(A)'s failure to obtain a remand report and the AO's non-cooperation. The AO was directed to provide necessary assistance to the assessee and complete the adjudication within 12 months.

The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in a similar case, held that the assessee was not part of an AOP. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee regarding its inclusion in the AOP were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal restored the Section 14A disallowance grounds to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration based on previous orders. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the Mark to Market loss as a business loss.

The Tribunal decided that the findings in the lead case would apply mutatis mutandis to all the current appeals. Additional grounds raised by the assessees, except for one specific case, were not pressed and were dismissed.

The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in a similar case, held that the assessee was not part of an AOP. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee regarding its inclusion in the AOP were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal decided that the findings in the lead case would apply mutatis mutandis to all the current appeals. Additional grounds raised by the assessees, except for one specific case, were not pressed and were dismissed.

The Tribunal decided that the findings in the lead case would apply mutatis mutandis to all the present appeals. Additional grounds raised by the assessees, except for one specific case, were not pressed and were dismissed.

The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in a similar case, held that the assessee was not part of an AOP. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee regarding its inclusion in the AOP were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal decided that the findings in the lead case would apply mutatis mutandis to all the current appeals. Additional grounds raised by the assessees, except for one specific case, were not pressed and were dismissed.

The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in a similar case, held that the assessee was not part of an AOP. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee regarding its inclusion in the AOP were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in a similar case, held that the assessee was not part of an AOP. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee regarding its inclusion in the AOP were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessment year in question was an unabated year, and no incriminating material was found during the search concerning household withdrawals. Therefore, no addition could be made under Section 153A for unabated years.

The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in a similar case, held that the assessee was not part of an AOP. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee regarding its inclusion in the AOP were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the principle of natural justice and the need to provide an opportunity for a hearing on merit. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal decided that the findings in the lead case would apply mutatis mutandis to all the current appeals. Additional grounds raised by the assessees, except for one specific case, were not pressed and were dismissed.

The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in a similar case, held that the assessee was not part of an AOP. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee regarding its inclusion in the AOP were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal decided that the findings in the lead case would apply mutatis mutandis to all the current appeals. Additional grounds raised by the assessees, except for one specific case, were not pressed and were dismissed.

The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in a similar case, held that the assessee was not part of an AOP. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee regarding its inclusion in the AOP were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal decided that the findings in the lead case would apply mutatis mutandis to all the current appeals. Additional grounds raised by the assessees, except for one specific case, were not pressed and were dismissed.

The Tribunal decided that the findings from the lead case would apply to all these appeals. Additional grounds raised by assessees were dismissed as not pressed, while additional grounds raised by Revenue were admitted.

The Tribunal held that signing the appeal by the Joint Managing Director instead of the Managing Director is a curable irregularity, not a fatal defect. The CIT(Appeals) should not have dismissed the appeal on this technical ground.

The Tribunal, following its earlier decision in a similar case, held that the assessee was not part of an AOP. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee regarding its inclusion in the AOP were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal decided that the findings in the lead case would apply mutatis mutandis to all the current appeals. Additional grounds raised by the assessees, except for one specific case, were not pressed and were dismissed.