ITAT Mumbai Judgments — June 2017

The Tribunal held that the assessee had agreed to the addition before the AO regarding capital gains, and therefore, that ground was decided against the assessee. For the unexplained cash deposits, the Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation was not cogent and remitted the issue to the AO for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that the issue was identical to a previous case for Assessment Year 2009-10, where the matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the current matter to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that payments for routine maintenance of equipment do not constitute fees for technical services under Section 194J. The service provider did not impart technical know-how, nor did the assessee acquire any technical information.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not pressed in terms of CBDT Circular No. 21/2015 as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the issues.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by not giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine evidence filed during appellate proceedings. The appeal was allowed, and the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.