ITAT Mumbai Judgments — July 2017

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee acted as an intermediary and was not responsible for TDS on these payments. The Tribunal agreed that the payments did not fall under the purview of Section 194I or 194J as interpreted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal deleted the penalties in most cases, finding that the nature of the additions did not warrant penalty or that the underlying quantum additions were deleted or restored to the Assessing Officer. In one instance, the penalty was deleted as the quantum addition was fully deleted by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal deleted the penalties in most cases, finding that the nature of the additions did not warrant penalty or that the underlying quantum additions were deleted or restored to the Assessing Officer. In one instance, the penalty was deleted as the quantum addition was fully deleted by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal deleted the penalties in most cases, finding that the nature of the additions did not warrant penalty or that the underlying quantum additions were deleted or restored to the Assessing Officer. In one instance, the penalty was deleted as the quantum addition was fully deleted by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal deleted the penalties in most cases, finding that the nature of the additions did not warrant penalty or that the underlying quantum additions were deleted or restored to the Assessing Officer. In one instance, the penalty was deleted as the quantum addition was fully deleted by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal deleted the penalties in most cases, finding that the nature of the additions did not warrant penalty or that the underlying quantum additions were deleted or restored to the Assessing Officer. In one instance, the penalty was deleted as the quantum addition was fully deleted by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal deleted the penalties in most cases, finding that the nature of the additions did not warrant penalty or that the underlying quantum additions were deleted or restored to the Assessing Officer. In one instance, the penalty was deleted as the quantum addition was fully deleted by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal deleted the penalties in most cases, finding that the nature of the additions did not warrant penalty or that the underlying quantum additions were deleted or restored to the Assessing Officer. In one instance, the penalty was deleted as the quantum addition was fully deleted by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found overwhelming evidence that the purchases were bogus, including admissions during survey proceedings and information from the Sales Tax Department. While the CIT(A) had restricted the addition to 8% of the bogus purchases, the Tribunal modified this to 12.5% of the bogus purchases.