ITAT Mumbai Judgments — September 2017

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the advocate's failure to represent the assessee before the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the AO made additions based on statements without sufficient inquiry and without allowing cross-examination. While the assessee provided bills and bank statements, the purchases were not entirely substantiated. Therefore, the addition was further restricted.

The Tribunal found that the addition of 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases was reasonable and covered the profit element. No new evidence was presented to deviate from the lower authorities' findings.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty. The assessee had not challenged the addition of bogus purchases before the appellate authority, implying acceptance of the AO's findings.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on grounds related to unconfirmed sundry creditors and unsecured loans, finding the assessee's reconciliations satisfactory. However, it dismissed the appeal regarding depreciation on the truck due to lack of evidence of its use. The Tribunal allowed depreciation on the factory shed, noting it was work-in-progress in an earlier year and transferred to factory shed in the relevant year.

The Tribunal held that since the AO accepted the assessee's sales and did not dispute them, the purchases could not be denied. The Tribunal noted that payments were made by account payee cheques and no further investigation was conducted by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous, as the assessee had consistently been granted exemption in previous years without any change in its constitution. The twin conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met, and the assessee was not hit by Section 13(1)(b).

The Tribunal held that the indexed cost of acquisition should be computed with reference to the year the previous owner acquired the asset, following High Court judgments. It also upheld the deletion of additions made on account of client code changes, citing previous tribunal rulings that such changes can be due to human error and are permissible under certain conditions.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's revisionary power under Section 263 could not be invoked for issues not forming part of the reassessment proceedings. The limitation period for revision under Section 263(2) should be reckoned from the date of the original assessment order in such cases.

The Tribunal found inconsistency in the CIT(A)'s order, noting that while a void-ab-initio defect was identified, the merits were also discussed, and the appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found inconsistency in the CIT(A)'s order, noting that while a void-ab-initio defect was identified, the merits were also discussed, and the appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found inconsistency in the CIT(A)'s order, noting that while a void-ab-initio defect was identified, the merits were also discussed, and the appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found inconsistency in the CIT(A)'s order, noting that while a void-ab-initio defect was identified, the merits were also discussed, and the appeals were partly allowed. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the method adopted by the assessee for calculating overhead expenses for earning exempt income was similar to a previously accepted method and that the Assessing Officer had not found any defect. For interest expenditure, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) relied on a previous year's order where no such disallowance was made, and therefore, remanded the issue for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer himself considered the issue academic for the current year. Since the determination of the grant's nature did not affect the tax liability for this year, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal allowed the client assistance charges and reimbursement expenses, following previous ITAT orders. It partly allowed the Section 14A disallowance, deleting the disallowance related to interest expenses based on the net worth presumption, but confirming disallowance for administrative expenses. The disallowance of bad debts was also partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee proved payments and provided purchase bills, the failure to produce suppliers or transportation details warranted disallowance. However, following High Court precedents, only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be added.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to 5% of the dividend income. The Tribunal found the facts and circumstances to be similar to those in the assessee's own case for prior assessment years, where a similar restriction was applied.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 271A for non-maintenance of books of account. However, it held that a separate penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited could not be levied simultaneously with the penalty under Section 271A.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) as the assessee provided no reasons for non-compliance with the notice. Since the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal either, the appeal was decided ex-parte.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 271A for non-maintenance of books of account. However, it held that a separate penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited could not be levied simultaneously with the penalty under Section 271A.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not pressed due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the issues raised.

The Tribunal held that if a property was previously let out and remained vacant, it should be assessed under Section 23(1)(c) and not deemed let out. However, disallowance of 10% of vehicle and telephone expenses was upheld due to lack of details.

The Tribunal allowed the client assistance charges and reimbursement expenses, following previous ITAT orders. It partly allowed the Section 14A disallowance, deleting the disallowance related to interest expenses based on the net worth presumption, but confirming disallowance for administrative expenses. The disallowance of bad debts was also partly allowed.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's application for condonation of delay, finding that the reasons provided were not plausible or sufficiently explained. Consequently, the appeal itself was not admitted and was dismissed as time-barred.

The Tribunal held that a belatedly filed return of income in response to a Section 148 notice is still a valid return and does not preclude a claim for exemption under Section 54F. The conditions for Section 54F exemption do not mandate filing the return within a stipulated time.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain 25% of the alleged bogus purchases as a disallowance. This was considered a correct view to cover potential revenue leakage, especially since the assessee had records of goods received and sold.

The Tribunal held that mere suspicion of suppliers being on a list of suspicious dealers does not invalidate genuine purchases, especially when payments were made through banking channels and supported by other evidence. The Tribunal followed its own prior decision on similar facts.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of the remaining 50% of purchases. The revenue failed to provide conclusive evidence that the purchases were entirely bogus or that the goods were not consumed.

The Tribunal held that the contentious issues could be resolved by examining relevant accounts and primary documents. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment after allowing the assessee an opportunity to file complete documentation.

The Tribunal allowed the client assistance charges and reimbursement expenses, following previous ITAT orders. It partly allowed the Section 14A disallowance, deleting the disallowance related to interest expenses based on the net worth presumption, but confirming disallowance for administrative expenses. The disallowance of bad debts was also partly allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition on account of bogus purchases to 12.5% of the aggregate value of such purchases, as agreed by the Assessing Officer in his remand report.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to interest under Section 244A up to the date of actual receipt of the refund order or pay order, following High Court and ITAT precedents.

The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's order, finding that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the allowability of the interest deduction when only an advance for a flat was made. The assessment order was deemed erroneous.

The Tribunal allowed the client assistance charges and reimbursement expenses, following previous ITAT orders. It partly allowed the Section 14A disallowance, deleting the disallowance related to interest expenses based on the net worth presumption, but confirming disallowance for administrative expenses. The disallowance of bad debts was also partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had informed the Assessing Officer about her inability to attend and that there was no denial of the adjournment request. It was further noted that no substantive prejudice was caused to the revenue, and in some cases, the information sought pertained to an entity not belonging to the assessee. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had informed the Assessing Officer about her inability to attend and that there was no denial of the adjournment request. It was further noted that no substantive prejudice was caused to the revenue, and in some cases, the information sought pertained to an entity not belonging to the assessee. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had informed the Assessing Officer about her inability to attend and that there was no denial of the adjournment request. It was further noted that no substantive prejudice was caused to the revenue, and in some cases, the information sought pertained to an entity not belonging to the assessee. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had informed the Assessing Officer about her inability to attend and that there was no denial of the adjournment request. It was further noted that no substantive prejudice was caused to the revenue, and in some cases, the information sought pertained to an entity not belonging to the assessee. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had informed the Assessing Officer about her inability to attend and that there was no denial of the adjournment request. It was further noted that no substantive prejudice was caused to the revenue, and in some cases, the information sought pertained to an entity not belonging to the assessee. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the period of holding of previous holders is to be included for allowing the benefit of indexation. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow indexation from 01/04/1981, following the Bombay High Court judgment, was affirmed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine based on CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which directs that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10 lac should not be filed or pressed. This instruction applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment orders for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11 were invalid due to the non-issuance of the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. For AY 2011-12, the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 12.50% on alleged bogus purchases was upheld, but the calculation method was restored to the AO.