Loading ITAT cases…
5,057 tribunal orders from the Mumbai bench in 2018.
Showing 40 of 5,057 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was covered by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 as the tax effect was less than ₹20 lacs and no exceptions applied. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found the estimated profit rate of 12.5% to be on the higher side for the assessee's business. Therefore, it directed the AO to recompute the income by applying a profit rate of 5% on the alleged bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reliance solely on an internet website for determining ALV without further inquiry was not justified. The Tribunal directed the AO to compute the deemed rent as per the Municipal rateable value.
The Tribunal held that the profit rate of 12.5% confirmed by the CIT(A) on bogus purchases was on the higher side. The AO was directed to recompute the income by applying a profit rate of 8% on the bogus purchases.
The tribunal found the 12.5% profit rate to be on the higher side, considering the assessee paid VAT on these purchases. It directed the AO to recompute the income by applying a profit rate of 8%.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to furnish required details. However, considering the Revenue's agreement for another opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that since the assessees were non-banking financial institutions, their interest income should be treated as business income, allowing related administrative and salary expenses. However, disallowances under Section 14A for expenses related to tax-free income were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantially complied with the directions of the TPO to the extent practically possible given the nature of its trade. It found that the TPO's insistence on a specific benchmarking method was misconceived and impractical, and that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was well-reasoned.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was covered by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, which sets monetary limits for appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions applied, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and lacking in proper consideration of facts. Therefore, the order was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were bogus, the corresponding sales were not doubted, and payments were made by cheque. Therefore, a reasonable profit should be estimated on these bogus purchases.
The tribunal held that an ex-parte order passed without granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard is bad in law. The appellate authority is bound to decide the appeal on merits even in the absence of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the assessees were non-banking financial institutions, their interest income should be treated as business income, allowing related administrative and salary expenses. However, disallowances under Section 14A for expenses related to tax-free income were upheld.
The Tribunal held that since the assessees were non-banking financial institutions, their interest income should be treated as business income, allowing related administrative and salary expenses. However, disallowances under Section 14A for expenses related to tax-free income were upheld.
The Tribunal held that since the assessees were non-banking financial institutions, their interest income should be treated as business income, allowing related administrative and salary expenses. However, disallowances under Section 14A for expenses related to tax-free income were upheld.
The Tribunal held that the profit rate of 12.5% confirmed by the CIT(A) on bogus purchases was on the higher side. The AO was directed to recompute the income by applying a profit rate of 8% on the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was covered by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions applied, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantially complied with the directions of the TPO to the extent practically possible given the nature of its trade. It found that the TPO's insistence on a specific benchmarking method was misconceived and impractical, and that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was well-reasoned.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantially complied with the directions of the TPO to the extent practically possible given the nature of its trade. It found that the TPO's insistence on a specific benchmarking method was misconceived and impractical, and that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was well-reasoned.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantially complied with the directions of the TPO to the extent practically possible given the nature of its trade. It found that the TPO's insistence on a specific benchmarking method was misconceived and impractical, and that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was well-reasoned.
The Tribunal held that an ex-parte order passed without giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard is bad in law. The appellate authority is bound to decide the appeal on merits even in the absence of the assessee.
The Tribunal held that while the purchases were bogus, the corresponding sales were not doubted, and payments were made by cheque. Therefore, a reasonable profit should be estimated on these bogus purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were unsustainable after a search action, as Section 271AAA was the appropriate provision. Sub-clause 3 of Section 271AAA explicitly prohibits penalties under Section 271(1)(c) in such cases.
The Tribunal restored the issue of annual letting value of unsold flats to the AO for fresh adjudication, considering the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court decisions, and also noting the AO's lack of basis for quantification. Grounds related to ad-hoc disallowances for repairs, travelling, and communication expenses were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that merely claiming a deduction under a wrong section, when the claim was otherwise bona fide, does not warrant a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee's mistake was not an intentional concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged their onus by providing loan confirmations, bank statements, PAN, and ITRs of the lenders. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 was deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee neither produced the suppliers nor substantiated the genuineness of purchases. However, acknowledging that there cannot be sales without purchases, the addition was sustained at 12.5% of the bogus purchases.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of professional fees paid to PAG, agreeing with previous decisions that the services were de facto provided by a director of the assessee company, not PAG itself. However, issues regarding business service centre expenses and telephone expenses were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that on identical facts for the preceding assessment year, a similar penalty was deleted by the Tribunal. Following that precedent, the Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed on the assessee for the current assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the concluded assessment was invalid as it disregarded a prior jurisdictional Tribunal order. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid and the addition as deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) was justified. The Tribunal found that the transaction was not a commercial transaction and the repayment of the amount did not alter its character as deemed dividend.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to verify derivative transactions based on ITAT precedents. The cross-objection regarding setting off derivative losses was set aside to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not correctly applied the law regarding the taxation of income from house property, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The Principal CIT was justified in passing the revision order.
The Tribunal restored the issue of interest calculation under Section 244A to the AO for fresh examination based on a High Court decision. For the auditor's travel expenses, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had not adequately examined the assessee's contentions regarding F&O transactions and the nature of business expenses. For the sundry creditors, the Tribunal noted that the AO had not properly applied Section 41(1) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged their onus by providing loan confirmations, bank statements, PAN, and ITRs of the lenders. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 was deleted.
The Tribunal restored the issues of royalty, technical knowhow fees, and Microsoft licensing fees to the AO/TPO for fresh examination, considering the assessee as a 'Licensed Manufacturer'. The disallowance of ASP Management fees was also restored for fresh examination. The Revenue's appeal regarding warranty expenses was dismissed, upholding the DRP's decision.