ITAT Mumbai Judgments — February 2017

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 upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, following a precedent that for clearing and forwarding agents, disallowance should not exceed 25% of such expenses. The Tribunal noted that some recoveries related to these expenses were offered for taxation.

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 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 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 current appeals. Additional grounds raised by the assessees, except for one specific case, were not pressed and were dismissed.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument and directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to re-examine the issue in light of the cited Tribunal order. The AO was instructed to consider the comparability of creditors and provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

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 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 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 trust, were dismissed as not pressed.

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 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 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 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 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 current appeals. Additional grounds raised by the assessees, except for one specific case, were not pressed and were dismissed.

The Tribunal restored the issue of denial of exemption to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, following a previous order. The disallowance of depreciation on assets acquired with exempt funds was decided in favor of the assessee, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

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 thus dismissed.

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 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, 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 held that the AO did not provide sufficient evidence or confront the assessee with the suppliers' statements. It was also noted that the AO did not doubt the assessee's sales, and disallowing entire purchases without proof of movement of goods or cash trial was unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not provide sufficient evidence or confront the assessee with the suppliers' statements. It was also noted that the AO did not doubt the assessee's sales, and disallowing entire purchases without proof of movement of goods or cash trial was unjustified.

The Tribunal decided to apply the findings from the lead case, Indian Corporate Loan Securitization Trust, to all the present appeals. Additional grounds raised by the assessees, except for one specific case, were not pressed and thus 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 held that while journal entries might technically fall under Section 269SS, in the context of business transactions between a firm and its partners, and considering reasonable cause under Section 273B, such entries for current account transfers of loans did not warrant a penalty under Section 271D.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of salary disallowance, agreeing that the AO had not disputed the expenditure's incurrence. It also confirmed that lease rent should be taxed under 'income from house property' based on a coordinate bench's decision. The Tribunal further agreed with the CIT(A)'s valuation of notional income from unoccupied properties and the deletion of notional interest on security deposits.

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 current appeals. Additional grounds raised by the assessees, except for one specific case, were not pressed and were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's denial of transactions was insufficient as she had claimed STT on those very transactions. However, considering the profit ratio on recorded transactions, the addition was restricted to the same profit ratio on the unrecorded transactions.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in replacing the disallowance from Section 14A to Section 36(1)(iii) without providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard, thus violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal decided that the findings from the lead case, Indian Corporate Loan Securitization Trust, would apply mutatis mutandis to all the present appeals. Additional grounds raised by assessees were dismissed as not pressed, while additional grounds by Revenue and one by KES Loan Trust were admitted.

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 found that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order on the crucial issues. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

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 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.

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 from the lead case would apply to all the present appeals. Additional grounds raised by assessees were dismissed as not pressed, while additional grounds raised by Revenue were admitted.

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 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.