ITAT Mumbai Judgments — April 2017

The Tribunal noted that while a business can have periods of inactivity, the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus of proving the operation and income of the tug. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

The tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on the basis of estimated income. The AO must prove concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, which could not be conclusively established in this case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of Rs. 48,38,237/- related to advances for flats, finding no double taxation. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s confirmation of an addition of Rs. 30,79,922/- as estimated profit for work-in-progress.

The Tribunal held that the transactions between the assessee and its subsidiary were in the nature of current accommodation adjustment entries, not loans or advances. Therefore, Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable to these transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, stating that the expenditure was capital in nature and writing it off constituted a capital loss, not allowable as business expenditure under Section 37(1).

The tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to interest under Section 244A on the refund of self-assessment tax, from the date of payment to the date of refund, following the Bombay High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that since the basis for levying penalty under Section 271C did not survive, the penalty orders were not sustainable. The penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries and applied his mind to the issue of share premium, accepting the assessee's explanation and valuation report. Therefore, the Pr. CIT erred in invoking Section 263.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash on hand to cover the deposit, supported by the cash book and bank statement. The Tribunal noted the cash book was not doubted and the assessee's books were audited.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It restricted the rent disallowance to Rs. 2,00,000, upheld the disallowance of car expenses, and dismissed grounds related to electricity and business promotion expenses as not pressed. Crucially, it directed the AO to re-examine the set-off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation according to a specified priority.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of the plot to the assessee upon retirement constituted a transfer under Section 2(47) of the IT Act. Therefore, the capital gain arising from the subsequent sale of the plot is taxable in the hands of the assessee as an individual.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal concerning the taxability of capital gains on FSI, referencing a jurisdictional High Court decision. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the transactions between the assessee and its subsidiary were in the nature of current accommodation adjustment entries, not loans or advances. Therefore, Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable to these transactions.

The Tribunal held that a 'block of assets' includes assets of all units of the assessee having the same rate of depreciation, not just assets of one unit. Following precedents, the Tribunal allowed the clubbing of gains from plant and machinery and motor cars.

The Tribunal restored the matter of AIR information reconciliation to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide substantiating evidence. For the employee contribution, the Tribunal held it allowable if paid before the return filing due date and remanded it to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was valid. While allowing the claim for expenditure and depreciation based on previous years' orders, it confirmed the AO's treatment of rental income under 'Income from house property'.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided for the delay were not sufficient or plausible. The assessee failed to prove sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the limitation period.

The Tribunal held that since the basis for levying penalty under Section 271C did not survive, the penalty was not sustainable. This was based on a coordinate bench's decision for AY 2001-02 where it was held that the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source on payments to KPMG International due to the principle of mutuality.

The Tribunal held that since the basis for levying penalty under Section 271C did not survive, the penalty orders were not sustainable. The penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to the Assessing Officer's non-application of mind. This was evidenced by the issuance of a standard notice under Section 274 without striking off irrelevant portions and by issuing notices under both Section 271(1)(c) and Section 271AAA without clarity.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to debtors and unproved purchases, finding sufficient evidence provided by the assessee. However, it sustained the addition for stock difference and partly allowed the estimation of net profit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee trust is a private revocable trust and the contributions made by investors constitute a revocable transfer of assets. Therefore, the income is taxable in the hands of the contributors, not the fund itself, aligning with the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to debtors and unproved purchases, finding sufficient evidence provided by the assessee. However, it sustained the addition for stock difference and partly allowed the estimation of net profit.

The Tribunal found that the crucial evidence (a confirmation from Singapore's tax authority) was obtained after the AO's order and had reasonable cause for not being filed earlier. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) properly analyzed the CMD's statement and the assessee failed to discharge its primary onus. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the electricity expenses were allowable as they were incurred for business purposes due to space shortage. Regarding the interest deduction, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient capital to provide interest-free loans, aligning with the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Utility Power Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the forfeited amount received for the issuance of shares, which is linked to share capital, is in the nature of a capital receipt. The character of a capital receipt cannot be changed to a business receipt.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's mistake in computing book profit was evident and the revenue should not benefit from it. For AY 2005-06, the Tribunal restored issues regarding bad debts and capital loss to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the exemption under Section 54 of the Act. The date of possession or when the flat was ready for occupation should be considered the date of purchase for claiming the exemption.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's mistake in computing book profit was evident and the revenue should not benefit from it. For AY 2005-06, the Tribunal restored issues regarding bad debts and capital loss to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to pass a fresh order. This was to include providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and to cross-examine the suppliers from whom the alleged bogus purchases were made.

The Tribunal held that the electricity expenses were allowable as they were incurred for business purposes due to space shortage. Regarding the interest deduction, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient capital to provide interest-free loans, aligning with the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Utility Power Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the electricity expenses were allowable as they were incurred for business purposes due to space shortage. Regarding the interest deduction, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient capital to provide interest-free loans, aligning with the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Reliance Utility Power Ltd.

The Tribunal held that since both the additions made under Sections 68 and 69 were deleted by the ITAT in the quantum appeal, the penalty levied on these additions is no longer sustainable and must be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the revised return was non-est. However, considering that the admitted tax might have been paid subsequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to verify the payment and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the revised return was non-est. However, considering that the admitted tax might have been paid subsequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to verify the payment and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the revised return was non-est. However, considering that the admitted tax might have been paid subsequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to verify the payment and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the revised return was non-est. However, considering that the admitted tax might have been paid subsequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to verify the payment and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the basis for levying penalty under Section 271C did not survive, the penalty orders were not sustainable. The penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the revised return was non-est. However, considering that the admitted tax might have been paid subsequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to verify the payment and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee trust is a private revocable trust and the contributions made by investors constitute a revocable transfer of assets. Therefore, the income is taxable in the hands of the contributors, not the fund itself, aligning with the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to substantiate its case regarding additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the nexus between the loans and the properties. The Tribunal also noted that similar claims were allowed in subsequent assessment years.

The Tribunal found that the AO had not given effect to the DRP's directions regarding the TDS disallowance and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication. Regarding the interest-free deposit, the Tribunal held that a slight delay in finalising a lease agreement did not warrant an addition of notional income.

The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) properly analyzed the CMD's statement and the assessee failed to discharge its primary onus. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was untenable as it suffered from non-application of mind. The notice did not clearly specify the charge against the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided prima-facie corroborative evidence, including bank statements and cash memos, which the lower authorities had not adequately considered. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's alternative plea to be assessed under section 44AF was not addressed.