ITAT Mumbai Judgments — February 2017

MANJARI P. SHAH,MUMBAI vs ASST CIT RG 23(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1078/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

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.

INDIAN LOAN RECEIVABLE TRUST MAY 2008,MUMBAI vs ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3610/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

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.

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,MUMBAI vs ITO WD 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1665/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2009-10Dismissed

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.

KOTAK SECURITIES LTD,MUMBAI vs ADDL CIT RG 4(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3494/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

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.

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,MUMBAI vs ITO WD 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1693/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11Dismissed

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.

INDIAN CORPORATE LOAN SECURITISATION TRUST 2008 SERIES 18,MUMBAI vs ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3617/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

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.

INDIA LOANS RECEIVABLE TRUST FEBRUARY 2008,MUMBAI vs ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1188/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

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.

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,MUMBAI vs ITO WD 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1692/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11Dismissed

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.

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,MUMBAI vs ITO WD 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1691/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11Dismissed

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.

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,MUMBAI vs ITO WD 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1690/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2009-10Dismissed

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.

MANEKCHAND PANANCHAND TRADING INVESTMENT CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs ITO 5(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 5708/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11Remanded

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.

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,MUMBAI vs ITO WD 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1689/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11Dismissed

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.

LOANS RECEIVABLE TRUST APRIL 2008,MUMBAI vs ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1187/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

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.

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,MUMBAI vs ITO WD 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1688/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11Dismissed

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.

DCIT CEN CIR 8(2), MUMBAI vs DEVANG GANDHI, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 4896/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2006-07Dismissed

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.

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,MUMBAI vs ITO WD 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1687/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11Dismissed

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.

INDIAN CORPORATE LOAN SECURITISATION TRUST 2008 SERIES LVI,MUMBAI vs ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1182/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

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.

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,MUMBAI vs ITO WD 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1686/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11Dismissed

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.

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,MUMBAI vs ITO WD 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1685/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11Dismissed

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.

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,MUMBAI vs ITO WD 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1684/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2009-10Dismissed

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.

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,MUMBAI vs ITO WD 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1683/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11Dismissed

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.

MANOHAR G. KANDA,BHAYANDER vs ITO WARD - 2(1), THANE

ITA 4695/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2011-12Allowed

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.

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,MUMBAI vs ITO WD 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1682/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2009-10Dismissed

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.

INDIAN CORPORATE LOAN SECURITISATION TRUST 2008 SERIES VII,MUMBAI vs ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3614/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

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.

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,MUMBAI vs ITO WD 19(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1681/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11Dismissed

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.

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,MUMBAI vs ITO WD 19(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1680/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11Dismissed

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.

SIDDHARTH TRADERS,MUMBAI vs A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE 10, MUMBAI

ITA 2290/MUM/2012[1998-99]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 1998-99Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the transactions for certain loan creditors. However, for one creditor, Rs. 2 lakh was accepted as explained, while Rs. 5 lakh was sustained.

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,MUMBAI vs ITO WD 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1679/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2009-10Dismissed

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.

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,MUMBAI vs ITO WD 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1678/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2007-08Dismissed

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.

GE CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA,MUMBAI vs ITO WD 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1671/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2008-09Dismissed

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.

INDIAN CORPORATE LOAN SECURITISATION TRUST 2008 SERIES 13,MUMBAI vs ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1186/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

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.

INDIAN LOAN RECEIVABLE TRUST FEBRUARY 2008,MUMBAI vs ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3611/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

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.

REINFIBRE PRODUCTS (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs ITO 13(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5669/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2017AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not following the principle of consistency for AY 2011-12. It directed the AO to restrict the addition to 6% for AY 2011-12, consistent with the decision for AY 2010-11.

SHUBH ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs ACIT CIR 15(2), MUMBAI

ITA 801/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2017AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal found that the issue of whether the interest earned emanated from business activity or was a diversion of funds for non-business activity was not examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

ACIT 3(1)(1), MUMBAI vs BDCO CONSULTING P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5711/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2017AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal found that the tax effect was below the threshold specified in the CBDT circular and did not fall under any exceptions. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as not maintainable.

PRIYA LTD.,MUMBAI vs DCIT (OSD),CIR 2(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3231/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2017AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided that Section 14A would not apply if no exempt income was earned, referencing High Court decisions. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to examine the factual matrix for correct disallowance. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

ITO 2(3)(2), MUMBAI vs SHAAN MARINE SERIVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2000/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2017AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable.

TALENT INFOWAY LTD,MUMBAI vs DCIT CC 46, MUMBAI

ITA 696/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2017AY 2005-06Withdrawn

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

SUPERMAX INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,MUMBAI vs DCIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

ITA 1573/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2017AY 2009-10Allowed

The tribunal held that the appeal was dismissed in violation of the principle of natural justice as the assessee was not heard. The impugned order was set aside, and the First Appellate Authority was directed to adjudicate the issue on merits after providing a proper hearing.

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs ZYLOG PLAST ALLOY P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3412/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2017AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without proper justification and without confronting it to the AO for a remand report. Therefore, the issues were set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.

ALLIED BLENDERS AND DISTILLERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs DCIT 5(3),

ITA 2574/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2017AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the purchases were not genuine as the suppliers were found to be hawala operators and the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence of actual delivery of goods. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of proportionate interest disallowance on interest-free advances, considering the business expediency and availability of own funds.

ALLIED BLENDERS AND DISTILLERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs DCIT 5(3),

ITA 2573/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2017AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the purchases were not genuine as the suppliers were found to be hawala operators and the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence of actual delivery of goods. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of proportionate interest disallowance on interest-free advances, considering the business expediency and availability of own funds.

SHUBH ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs ACIT CIR 15(2), MUMBAI

ITA 252/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2017AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal found that the issue of whether the interest earned emanated from business activity or was a diversion of funds for non-business activity was not examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

SAPPPHIRE INTERNATIONAL,MUMBAI vs DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4876/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2017AY 2007-08Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A), finding no merit in the assessee's contention that the disallowance constituted a double addition. The addition was made because the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases.

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs ALLIED BLENDERS & DISTILLERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2446/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2017AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the purchases were not genuine as the suppliers were found to be hawala operators and the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence of actual delivery of goods. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of proportionate interest disallowance on interest-free advances, considering the business expediency and availability of own funds.

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs ALLIED BLENDERS & DISTILLERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2447/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2017AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the purchases were not genuine as the suppliers were found to be hawala operators and the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence of actual delivery of goods. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of proportionate interest disallowance on interest-free advances, considering the business expediency and availability of own funds.

ACIT CIR 27(2), MUMBAI vs PRASHANT KANTILAL LATHIA, MUMBAI

ITA 3713/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2017AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the Rs. 10 lakhs limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which is retrospective. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.

BHAVIK JAYANT GANDHI,MUMBAI vs ITO WD. 25(1)(4) NOW ITO WD. 32(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2312/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed21 Feb 2017AY 2011-12Dismissed

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 8% of the impugned purchases, considering it a reasonable approach to tax only the profit component of unverified transactions.

KETAN V. PAREKH,MUMBAI vs ASST CIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

ITA 7571/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: Disposed20 Feb 2017AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the AO was justified in estimating domestic expenses, the quantum of Rs. 6,00,000/- was not fully supported by material. Considering the withdrawals and the death of the assessee's mother, the addition was restricted.

DCIT CEN CIR 1 (1)(4), MUMBAI vs D.B. REALTY P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 7048/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: Disposed20 Feb 2017AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) which reduced the disallowance under Section 14A to 5% of fixed/semi-variable expenditure, following a previous decision for AY 2009-10.