ITAT Mumbai Judgments — March 2018

The Tribunal considered the submissions and allowed the Revenue's application to withdraw the appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found no justification for imposing the penalty as the assessee had attended proceedings and furnished details. The penalty was imposed to secure the assessee's presence, which was deemed unnecessary given the circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because a mandatory notice under section 143(2) was not issued to the assessee. Therefore, the order of reassessment was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO should restrict the disallowance of alleged bogus purchases by estimating the profit element at a specific percentage, considering the GP already declared by the assessee. The additional income offered by the assessee was not disturbed.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide any cogent evidence to disprove the assessee's explanation that the cash deposits were from prior withdrawals. The Tribunal noted that there is no legal restriction on keeping cash at home and that suspicion alone cannot substitute for evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding CSR expenses, citing a previous decision in the assessee's own case. The issue of slow-moving stock was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The claim for depreciation on terminal rights at the prescribed rate for intangible assets was allowed.

The Tribunal held that amenity charges are to be taxed under the head 'income from other sources' and municipal taxes paid are directly related to the property letting, thus not deductible from 'income from other sources'. The Tribunal restored the AO's order.

The Tribunal held that PRE, in the context of obtaining permission to sell products in various countries, should be allowed as revenue expenditure, relying on High Court judgments. The cross-objection regarding interest on refund was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance on reimbursement of expenses was not sustainable, following its own prior decisions. For the advertising expenses, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification of certain certificates.

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) when called.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had voluntarily disallowed the expenses upon receiving a notice under Section 148, and the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty. The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had voluntarily disallowed the expenses upon receiving a notice under Section 148, and the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty. The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had voluntarily disallowed the expenses upon receiving a notice under Section 148, and the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty. The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction u/s. 35DDA for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The disallowance of depreciation for AY 2008-09 was upheld due to non-production of supporting documents.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had voluntarily disallowed the expenses upon receiving a notice under Section 148, and the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty. The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the capital gains should be computed based on the agreement with the third party. It was noted that the third party had also offered the entire sale consideration and profit to tax, indicating no tax evasion.

The Tribunal held that amenity charges are to be taxed under the head 'income from other sources' and municipal taxes paid are directly related to the property letting, thus not deductible from 'income from other sources'. The Tribunal restored the AO's order.

The Tribunal restored the issue of deduction u/s. 35DDA for AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The disallowance of depreciation for AY 2008-09 was upheld due to non-production of supporting documents.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the assessee's own case. The High Court had held that the payment was a reimbursement of expenses and not subject to TDS provisions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had duly confronted the additional evidence with the AO and that there was no violation of Rule 46A. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a reasoned order after considering the evidence, including confirmations from the lenders' assessing officers.

The Tribunal held that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had examined the nature of services for which the commission was paid or the relevant DTAA clauses. The matter was restored to the AO for proper examination of these aspects.

The Tribunal held that the funds brought in by new shareholders were for purchasing shares of the company, not for acquiring or constructing the property. Therefore, the interest paid on these funds was not deductible under Section 24(b).

The Tribunal held that the disallowance on reimbursement of expenses was not sustainable, following its own prior decisions. For the advertising expenses, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification of certain certificates.

The Tribunal held that the amendment requiring a completion certificate and a five-year completion period was prospective and not applicable to projects approved before its introduction. Therefore, the assessee was not required to produce a completion certificate for a project approved prior to the amendment.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is not warranted if the recipient has declared the income and paid tax on it. The matter was remitted back to the AO to verify this fact.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the facts of the present case were identical to those before a co-ordinate bench in the case of Maharashtra Bank Employees Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. In that case, the Tribunal distinguished the facts from precedents like State Bank of Income Vs. CIT and Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. Vs. ITO, where the issue involved deposits of surplus funds. The Tribunal in the cited case held that if a society is statutorily required to deposit a portion of its profits in reserve funds, which are then parked in FDRs with a cooperative bank or scheduled bank, the interest income earned from such deposits is considered to be from carrying on its business activities and is therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Tribunal respectfully followed this decision. The operative direction was to allow the appeal, implying the deduction claimed by the assessee is to be granted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. It held that if an assessee has sufficient own funds for investments, a presumption can be drawn that these investments came from own funds, not borrowed funds, thus no disallowance under Section 14A is required.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. It held that if an assessee has sufficient own funds for investments, a presumption can be drawn that these investments came from own funds, not borrowed funds, thus no disallowance under Section 14A is required.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had voluntarily disallowed the expenses upon receiving a notice under Section 148, indicating awareness of the issue. Consequently, the deletion of penalties by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the depositee company's replies and the assessee's failure to offer interest income, weakening the assessee's arguments. The matter was remitted back to the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence (audited segmental accounts) and restored the transfer pricing issue to the AO/TPO for fresh examination. The issue regarding TP adjustment at entity level vs. transaction level was also restored to the AO/TPO. The foreign exchange loss claim was admitted as an additional ground and restored to the AO for examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to share issue expenses as it was covered by a previous order in the assessee's own case. However, the issue concerning MODVAT credit was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issue of Annual Letting Value to the AO for fresh examination. It directed deletion of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) if TDS was paid before the due date for filing returns. The Tribunal also restored the issue of notional interest on loans to the AO. The disallowance for scientific research expenditure was upheld, and the addition to gross profit was also upheld.

The Tribunal held that the registered sale deeds for smaller plots at a lower consideration, executed after the cancellation of the MOU due to legal disputes and a distress sale situation, should be considered for computing capital gains. The addition of the unexplained advance was also questioned.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not produce necessary evidence before the Assessing Officer or CIT(A) regarding the genuineness of contract receipts and partnership deeds. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a Co-operative Society and not a Co-operative Bank, as it does not hold a banking license and its activities are limited to providing credit facilities to its members. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80P cannot be denied.

The Tribunal followed consistent past decisions of co-ordinate benches and orders related to Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) resolutions. The AO was directed to grant relief to the assessee based on these precedents.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient reconciliation for closing stock valuation including indirect taxes. It also agreed that unutilized VAT credit, when accounted for as current assets, could not be treated as suppressed sales.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the investor. It also noted that Section 56(1)(viib), which deals with share premium, was not applicable for the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the assessee held rights in the property for over 36 months, making it eligible for long-term capital gains. The AO was directed to recompute the capital gains, allowing the benefit of indexation from the actual date of booking.

The Tribunal followed consistent past decisions of co-ordinate benches and orders related to Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) resolutions. The AO was directed to grant relief to the assessee based on these precedents.

The Tribunal followed consistent past decisions of co-ordinate benches and orders related to Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) resolutions. The AO was directed to grant relief to the assessee based on these precedents.

The Tribunal followed consistent past decisions of co-ordinate benches and orders related to Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) resolutions. The AO was directed to grant relief to the assessee based on these precedents.

The Tribunal followed consistent past decisions of co-ordinate benches and orders related to Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) resolutions. The AO was directed to grant relief to the assessee based on these precedents.

The Tribunal followed consistent past decisions of co-ordinate benches and orders related to Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) resolutions. The AO was directed to grant relief to the assessee based on these precedents.

The Tribunal followed consistent past decisions of co-ordinate benches and orders related to Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) resolutions. The AO was directed to grant relief to the assessee based on these precedents.

The Tribunal followed consistent past decisions of co-ordinate benches and orders related to Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) resolutions. The AO was directed to grant relief to the assessee based on these precedents.

The Tribunal followed consistent past decisions of co-ordinate benches and orders related to Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) resolutions. The AO was directed to grant relief to the assessee based on these precedents.

The Tribunal followed consistent past decisions of co-ordinate benches and orders related to Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) resolutions. The AO was directed to grant relief to the assessee based on these precedents.

The Tribunal followed consistent past decisions of co-ordinate benches and orders related to Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) resolutions. The AO was directed to grant relief to the assessee based on these precedents.