ITAT Mumbai Judgments — May 2017

The Tribunal followed its previous order in the assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2010-11, which had also dismissed the Revenue's appeal on similar grounds. The Tribunal found the facts to be the same.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D and that the assessees had sufficient own funds to cover their investments, thus deleting the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The Tribunal also allowed the issue regarding Section 115JB in favour of the Revenue based on the assessee's concession.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice suffered from non-application of mind by the AO as it did not clearly specify the charge against the assessee. Following Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the notice was deemed untenable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the AO's power to refer to the DVO under Section 55A is conditional on the AO believing the assessee's disclosed value is lower than the fair market value. Since the AO suspected the assessee's valuation was higher, the condition for referral was not met.

The Tribunal held that the loss incurred due to the employee's fraud and subsequent compensation to the customer was a business loss, not a bad debt. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow this as a business loss was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the rental income from the self-owned property should be assessed under the head 'Income from House Property', following the Supreme Court's decision in Raj Dadarkar & Associates. Consequential deductions were also to be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in dispute was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction before invoking Rule 8D and that the assessees had sufficient own funds to cover their investments, thus deleting the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The Tribunal also allowed the issue regarding Section 115JB in favour of the Revenue based on the assessee's concession.

The Tribunal held that credit card charges paid to banks are not 'commission or brokerage' under Section 194H, thus no TDS was required. It also held that since the assessee had sufficient own non-interest bearing funds to cover investments, no interest expenditure was attributable to exempt income under Section 14A.

The Tribunal restored the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A to the AO for fresh computation. It also set aside the addition for unproved purchases, directing the AO to examine parties and allow cross-examination. The disallowance of commission paid to directors was allowed following a co-ordinate bench's decision.

The Tribunal held that since payments were made by account payee cheques and stock registers were maintained, the purchases, though from hawala parties, were likely used for sales. Therefore, the disallowance should be restricted to a percentage of profit.

The Tribunal held that since payments were made by account payee cheques and stock registers were maintained, the purchases were likely used for sales. Therefore, disallowing the entire bogus purchases was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee claimed the deduction in good faith based on the auditor's certificate and that a mere disallowance of a claim does not automatically attract penalty. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court decisions stating that penalty is not leviable if the claim was bona fide and withdrawn before assessment completion.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was invalid as it did not specify the exact charge for penalty and suffered from non-application of mind. The notice was a standard format without striking out irrelevant clauses, failing to provide clarity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had examined the bills and related documents for the reimbursement expenses. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after examining the documents.

The Tribunal held that the loss on shifting of securities from 'Available for Sale' to 'Held to Maturity' is an allowable deduction, following the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. Consequently, the CIT's order under Section 263 was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal due to the unexplained delay. The assessee failed to provide supporting evidence for the reasons given for the delay, and the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had examined crucial ledger accounts of Pursarth and the assessee's contention regarding the use of borrowed funds for business liabilities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that since payments were made by account payee cheques and stock registers were maintained, the purchases were likely used for sales. Therefore, disallowing the entire bogus purchases was not justified.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order that the surplus on land sale was taxable as capital gains. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 54EC.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on capital gains and Section 2(24)(iv) additions, remanding them to the AO for fresh assessment based on a High Court judgment. Certain disallowances were also remanded for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the rectification order passed by the AO was not valid as it involved debatable issues and went beyond the scope of 'mistake apparent from record'. The CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the rectification order.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance of both labour charges and business promotion expenses to 25% of the amounts originally disallowed.

The Tribunal held that for a portion of the cash deposit, the assessee had provided sufficient explanation regarding prior withdrawals for a land deal. However, for another portion, the explanation was deemed insufficient, leading to a partial sustainment of the addition.

The Tribunal held that for a portion of the cash deposit, the assessee had provided sufficient explanation regarding prior withdrawals for a land deal. However, for another portion, the explanation was deemed insufficient, leading to a partial sustainment of the addition.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance by the CIT(A). It ruled that the payments made for carriage fees were indeed subject to TDS under Section 194C, not Section 194J, and thus, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was misplaced.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer lacked independent application of mind and there was no live link between the reasons for reopening and the material on record. The Tribunal also found that the share transactions were supported by purchase bills, confirmation letters, and were subsequently dematerialized and sold.

The Tribunal held that donations made by one charitable trust to another, out of current income, are considered application of income for charitable purposes. The CIT(A)'s order allowing the donation was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that donations made by one charitable trust to another, out of current income, are considered application of income for charitable purposes. The CIT(A)'s order allowing the donation was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the commission payment was not deductible as it was found to be bogus. However, it allowed the deduction for employee PF/ESI contributions paid within the due date for filing the return of income, following a High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the commission payment was not deductible as it was found to be bogus. However, it allowed the deduction for employee PF/ESI contributions paid within the due date for filing the return of income, following a High Court ruling.

The Tribunal held that the commission payment was not deductible as it was found to be bogus. However, it allowed the deduction for employee PF/ESI contributions paid within the due date for filing the return of income, following a High Court ruling.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which had followed previous Tribunal orders in favor of the assessee. The CIT(A) had held that Section 194C was applicable for pest control and AMC, and Section 192 was applicable for consultant doctors.

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the Principal CIT, finding no material to show the Assessing Officer had examined the issue or that the Principal CIT's view was unsustainable. The assessee failed to appear or provide any counter-evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine, following a CBDT circular that directs against filing appeals where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 10 lac. This instruction applies to pending appeals as well.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on capital gains and Section 2(24)(iv) additions, remanding them to the AO for fresh assessment based on a High Court judgment. Certain disallowances were also remanded for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the surplus on sale of land was taxable as capital gains, following its own prior decision and dismissing the Revenue's appeal. It also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding Section 54EC exemption. The assessee's appeals regarding Section 80IB(10) were allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal due to the unexplained delay. The assessee failed to provide supporting evidence for the reasons given for the delay, and the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition of Rs. 10,02,800/- was set aside by a co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case for the same assessment year. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) does not survive.

The Tribunal held that the rental income from the self-owned property should be assessed under the head 'Income from House Property', following the Supreme Court's decision in Raj Dadarkar & Associates. Consequential deductions were also to be allowed.