ITAT Mumbai Judgments — July 2017

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the assessee was not entitled to deduct interest expenses from house property income. This was because the loan funds were not utilized for the purchase of the flats, and the payments were made from a capital gains account.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) was not justified as the AO failed to provide comparable data to prove the unreasonableness of the payments and there was no evidence of tax evasion. The payments were made to directors with different functional areas and the company was not in a position to evade taxes.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had deleted the addition without proper verification of the creditworthiness, genuineness, and identity of the creditor. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the loss on the assignment of loans originally advanced by the assessee itself is a business loss. However, the loss on the assignment of loans purchased from Reliance Capital was confirmed as capital loss by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by its own previous decision for the assessment year 2008-09, which had restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the present appeal was also restored to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the loss on the assignment of loans originally advanced by the assessee itself is a business loss. However, the loss on the assignment of loans purchased from Reliance Capital was confirmed as capital loss by the lower authorities.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the purchase agreements were made in earlier years, and only the registration was done in the current year. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding sufficient documentary evidence to support the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal held that the notices under Section 148 and 142(1) were not properly served on the assessee as they were affixed at an incorrect address. Consequently, the reassessment order passed without valid service of notice was without jurisdiction and therefore void.