ITAT Mumbai Judgments — July 2018

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal in the absence of the assessee's representative, despite a request for adjournment. Therefore, the order was not justifiable.

The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC is paid before the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1), no disallowance can be made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The first proviso to section 43B applies retrospectively.

The Tribunal held that while the principle that no disallowance can be made if own funds exceed investments is correct, the assessee failed to provide details of its own funds for the relevant year. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that transactions with sister concerns, who were franchisees, were genuine business transactions. Therefore, the disallowance of bad debts relating to sister concerns was also directed to be allowed. Other grounds related to depreciation, carry forward of losses, and Section 14A were decided in favor of the assessee, while interest under Section 234D was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that ad-hoc disallowances are not permissible without specific verification or cogent reasons. Following a precedent, the Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) failed to provide a valid basis for the disallowance.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the comparables selected by the TPO were appropriate for benchmarking the purchase of graphic art films. The Tribunal found that the assessee's purchase price was within the arm's length margin, considering the benefit of the proviso to Section 92C(2).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the expenses for employee benefits and other miscellaneous items were not directly related to the project and were incurred for maintaining the company's statutory and day-to-day functions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While the reopening validity was not pressed, the addition for bogus purchases was modified. The Tribunal estimated the profit element at 6% of the impugned purchases, considering the VAT rate and the assessee's ability to correlate purchases with sales.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the source and nature of the cash deposits. The witnesses produced by the assessee did not corroborate her claim, and she could not provide details of the actual buyers. Therefore, the addition was justified.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the comparables selected by the TPO were appropriate for benchmarking the purchase of graphic art films. The Tribunal found that the assessee's purchase price was within the arm's length margin, considering the benefit of the proviso to Section 92C(2).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the non-mentioning of carried forward losses in the preceding year's return was an inadvertent error and not a furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal also noted a factual discrepancy in the quantum of losses disputed by the AO.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had deleted the addition solely based on a High Court judgment without discussing the nature of the expenses or the facts of the present case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions for bogus purchases and disallowance of expenses, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and maintained audited accounts. The disallowance under Section 14A was also deleted as the assessee did not earn any tax-free income.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions for bogus purchases and disallowance of expenses, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and maintained audited accounts. The disallowance under Section 14A was also deleted as the assessee did not earn any tax-free income.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions for bogus purchases and disallowance of expenses, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s orders. The disallowance under Section 14A was also deleted as the assessee earned no tax-free income.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the AO/DRP was ad-hoc and not in accordance with the prescribed methods under Section 92C of the Income Tax Act. Following its own prior decisions for earlier assessment years, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the registration date of an association does not negate its existence as an unregistered body. The CIT(A) failed to examine the assessee's contentions regarding the builder acting as a trustee for the unregistered association.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was justified as it was based on specific and concrete information. However, on merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the genuineness of purchases by providing confirmations and ledger accounts.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was justified as it was based on specific and concrete information. However, on merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the genuineness of purchases by providing confirmations and ledger accounts.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was justified as it was based on specific and concrete information. However, on merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the genuineness of purchases by providing confirmations and ledger accounts.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reliance on a previous ITAT decision was not relevant to the specific issue at hand. The Tribunal decided that the issue required fresh examination by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was justified as it was based on specific and concrete information. However, on merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the genuineness of purchases by providing confirmations and ledger accounts.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was justified as it was based on specific and concrete information. However, on merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the genuineness of purchases by providing confirmations and ledger accounts.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemption) was expected to examine the case on merit. Due to potential confusion regarding the submission of details, the appeal was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was levied had already been deleted by a co-ordinate bench in the quantum appeal, the penalty order did not survive. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was following the percentage of completion method of accounting, not the completed contract method. Therefore, the expenses claimed in the Profit & Loss account were allowable as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was justified as it was based on specific and concrete information. However, on merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the genuineness of purchases by providing confirmations and ledger accounts.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not receive any exempt income during the year, no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted. This decision followed the ratio of the Delhi High Court in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT.

The Tribunal held that the license fee income should be treated as business income, following a previous decision on similar facts. Consequently, the related expenses incurred for business purposes were allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. It was held that the trial expenses were for commercialization and did not provide enduring benefit, thus not requiring capitalization.

The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the speculation loss against the income earned from trading in shares, following a previous year's finding and the Bombay High Court's decision. The appeal was allowed on this specific issue.

The Tribunal held that advancing loans to other charitable trusts with similar objects, falling within the trust's objectives, constitutes application of income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order based on prior decisions.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was a debatable issue and could not be disallowed while processing the return under Section 143(1). The adjustment made by the CPC was without basis.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was justified as it was based on specific and concrete information. However, on merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the genuineness of purchases by providing confirmations and ledger accounts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentary evidence for the genuineness of the loans. The AO failed to provide positive evidence to negate the assessee's claim, and the reassessment proceedings were also found to be invalid.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was justified as it was based on specific and concrete information. However, on merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the genuineness of purchases by providing confirmations and ledger accounts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to additional depreciation on the windmill. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision was followed, which stated that an assessee engaged in manufacturing or production of any article or thing can claim additional depreciation on new machinery or plant acquired and installed after March 31, 2002.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was justified as it was based on specific and concrete information. However, on merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the genuineness of purchases by providing confirmations and ledger accounts.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was justified as it was based on specific and concrete information. However, on merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the genuineness of purchases by providing confirmations and ledger accounts.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was justified as it was based on specific and concrete information. However, on merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the genuineness of purchases by providing confirmations and ledger accounts.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was justified as it was based on specific and concrete information. However, on merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the genuineness of purchases by providing confirmations and ledger accounts.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was justified as it was based on specific and concrete information. However, on merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the genuineness of purchases by providing confirmations and ledger accounts.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was justified as it was based on specific and concrete information. However, on merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the genuineness of purchases by providing confirmations and ledger accounts.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was justified as it was based on specific and concrete information. However, on merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the genuineness of purchases by providing confirmations and ledger accounts.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was justified as it was based on specific and concrete information. However, on merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the genuineness of purchases by providing confirmations and ledger accounts.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was justified as it was based on specific and concrete information. However, on merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the genuineness of purchases by providing confirmations and ledger accounts.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was justified as it was based on specific and concrete information. However, on merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the genuineness of purchases by providing confirmations and ledger accounts.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was justified as it was based on specific and concrete information. However, on merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the genuineness of purchases by providing confirmations and ledger accounts.

The Tribunal held that while violations of Section 13(1)(c) could lead to denial of exemption, loans and capital expenditures treated as assets in books cannot be added as income. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions towards loans, advances, and capital expenditure was upheld.