ITAT Mumbai Judgments — November 2017

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not validly initiated as the AO failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not validly initiated as the AO failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's rectification application was allowed and the penalty deleted. The revenue did not appeal against the rectification. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed.

The ITAT restored the issue of bogus purchases to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering the stock register. The disallowance of 15% of expenses was confirmed as the assessee failed to provide evidence.

The Tribunal, taking a lenient view due to the assessee's casual approach and lack of substantiation before lower authorities, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard and substantiate their claims.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which deleted the addition. It was noted that the assessee had not claimed any expenses in the profit and loss account, and the business had not commenced.

The Tribunal, considering the revenue's no-objection to a remand and the smallness of the issue, decided to restore the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to provide proper opportunity and share relevant information with the assessee.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, which raised a jurisdictional issue concerning the assessee's status as an assessee in default. The issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for factual verification and adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the payment was made to discharge a contractual liability and was allowable. The Tribunal relied on High Court decisions which held similar payments as discharge of liability between collaborator and assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that interest income was assessable as business income, following the principle of consistency. However, the issue of allowability of interest expenditure was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) which had restricted the addition to 6.5% of the bogus purchases. While higher disallowance was warranted based on precedents, the appeal was by the assessee, and it was not appropriate to take away the relief already granted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds challenging the reopening of the assessment. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide these specific grounds with a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had itself submitted a working of excessive depreciation. Therefore, the burden was on the assessee to prove the claim with supporting evidence. The Tribunal granted an opportunity to the assessee to establish its claim.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated as the Assessing Officer had reason to believe income had escaped assessment based on information from the Sales Tax Department. On merits, the addition was upheld as the assessee failed to substantiate the purchases and provide confirmations from suppliers.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were not fully substantiated, the addition should account for the profit element. Considering the sales turnover was not disputed and payments were through banking channels, the addition was reduced.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee could not fully substantiate the purchases, the addition should account for the profit element. Therefore, the additions were further restricted to 10% of the alleged bogus purchases.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were bogus, 100% disallowance was not appropriate as the sales were not doubted. A disallowance of 12.5% of the bogus purchases was deemed to meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not attracted as there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee's claim was made with full disclosure and was later upheld in subsequent assessment years.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to substantiate deliveries and provide supplier confirmation, the addition should account for the profit element. However, the CIT(A)'s estimation was considered too low, and the addition was enhanced to 5% of the alleged bogus purchases.

The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was levied had already been deleted by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal, the penalty itself did not survive. Therefore, the cancellation of the penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 2000/-.

The Tribunal held that the PMS transactions were investment activities and the gain was correctly treated as short-term capital gain. Regarding the Salt Pan Land sale, the Tribunal ruled that the contingent amount, neither received nor accrued, could not be included in the sale consideration for capital gains.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) to provide the AIR information to the assessee. The assessee was directed to reconcile the information and substantiate the purchase transactions.