ITAT Mumbai Judgments — August 2018

The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's submission and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The Revenue was granted liberty to file Miscellaneous Applications for cases that were inadvertently included or met exceptions to the circular.

The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's contention that the appeals should be dismissed as withdrawn due to the low tax effect. It also granted liberty to the Revenue to file Miscellaneous Applications for cases wrongly included.

The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's submission and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The Revenue was granted liberty to file Miscellaneous Applications for cases that were inadvertently included or met exceptions to the circular.

The Tribunal held that 5% of exempt income should be added towards expenditure incurred in relation to earning exempt income. It also ruled that disallowance for liaisoning charges paid to non-residents for services rendered outside India was not applicable, and upheld the deletion of estimated income on advances received as the assessee followed the percentage completion method.

The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's submission and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The Revenue was granted liberty to file Miscellaneous Applications for cases that were inadvertently included or met exceptions to the circular.

The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's submission and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The Revenue was granted liberty to file Miscellaneous Applications for cases that were inadvertently included or met exceptions to the circular.

The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's submission and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The Revenue was granted liberty to file Miscellaneous Applications for cases that were inadvertently included or met exceptions to the circular.

The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's submission and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The Revenue was granted liberty to file Miscellaneous Applications for cases that were inadvertently included or met exceptions to the circular.

The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's submission and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The Revenue was granted liberty to file Miscellaneous Applications for cases that were inadvertently included or met exceptions to the circular.

The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's submission and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. It also granted liberty to the Revenue to file Miscellaneous Applications for cases that were wrongly included or where the tax effect exceeded the limit.

The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's submission and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The Revenue was granted liberty to file Miscellaneous Applications for cases that were inadvertently included or met exceptions to the circular.

The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's submission that the appeals, having a tax effect below the specified monetary limit, should be dismissed as withdrawn. The Revenue was granted liberty to file Miscellaneous Applications for cases wrongly included.

The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's submission and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that they involved a tax effect below the specified monetary limit. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file Miscellaneous Applications for cases wrongly included.

The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's submission and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. It also clarified that the Revenue could file Miscellaneous Applications to point out any cases that were wrongly included.

The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's submission and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that the tax effect in these cases did not exceed the specified monetary limit. The Revenue was granted liberty to file Miscellaneous Applications for cases that were inadvertently included or covered by exceptions.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search and the assessment was unabated, the addition under section 68 was not sustainable. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was confirmed.

The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's submission and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The Revenue was granted liberty to file Miscellaneous Applications for cases that were inadvertently included or met exceptions to the circular.

The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's submission and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that they involved a tax effect below the specified monetary limit. The Revenue was granted liberty to file Miscellaneous Applications for cases wrongly included.

The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's submission and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The Revenue was granted liberty to file Miscellaneous Applications for cases that were inadvertently included or met exceptions to the circular.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search and the assessment was unabated, the addition under section 68 was not sustainable. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was confirmed.

The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's submission and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The Revenue was granted liberty to file Miscellaneous Applications for cases that were inadvertently included or met exceptions to the circular.

The Tribunal found a nexus between the borrowing from Axis Bank and the repayment of earlier loans, disagreeing with the lower authorities. It directed the AO to allow the interest deduction in proportion to the investments in the two buildings.

The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's submission and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The Revenue was granted liberty to file Miscellaneous Applications for cases that were inadvertently included or met exceptions to the circular.

The Tribunal held that the donations collected were not necessarily in violation of Section 13 and that the assessee had fulfilled the application of income requirements for charitable purposes. The Tribunal followed the Bombay High Court's decision in a similar case.

The Tribunal dismissed the disallowance of interest on late TDS and internet charges. It allowed the repair and maintenance of software license and consultancy charges. The addition for bogus purchases was partly allowed by reducing the profit rate, and the deletion of exhibition expenses was upheld.

The Tribunal held that 5% of exempt income should be added towards expenditure incurred in relation to earning exempt income. It also ruled that disallowance for liaisoning charges paid to non-residents for services rendered outside India was not applicable, and upheld the deletion of estimated income on advances received as the assessee followed the percentage completion method.

The Tribunal held that the payments for software license, maintenance, and training fees to Fair Isaac International Corporation were not taxable as royalty or fees for technical services under the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any supporting evidence or appearance from the assessee at any stage, the disallowances and additions made by the AO cannot be deleted. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without providing the AO an opportunity to comment, thereby violating Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The matter was therefore restored to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable, citing CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 which revised monetary limits for filing appeals. The assessee's Cross Objection was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal noted that an ex-parte order was passed as the assessee was absent and sought adjournments. The Tribunal directed the assessee to produce evidence before the CIT(A) and ordered a fresh adjudication of the appeal with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The tribunal corrected the assessee's name in the cause title of the order. The order dated 11th July 2018 was modified solely to rectify this typographical error.

The Tribunal held that the memorandum of appeal was defective as it was not signed by the Managing Director as required by Section 140(c) of the Income Tax Act and Rule 47(1) read with Rule 45(2) of the Income Tax Rules. Since the defects were not rectified, the appeals could not be admitted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenditure was based on a plausible explanation by the assessee regarding business setup, and a mere disallowance or wrong claim does not automatically lead to penalty. The penalty was therefore not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments in other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), as long as the investment is with a cooperative society. Section 80P(4) applies to cooperative banks themselves, not to the investments made by other cooperative societies in them.

The Tribunal held that the CIT was justified in invoking Section 263 in cases of lack of inquiry, contravention of provisions, and non-deduction of tax. However, the issue regarding caretaking charges paid to a charitable trust required further verification by the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own prior rulings in the assessee's own cases. The payments to the legal heir were considered allowable as per the partnership deed, short TDS deduction was covered by a prior ITAT decision, and the payment to foreign affiliates was not taxable in India, thus not requiring TDS.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made in the absence of exempt income, directing the AO to verify this claim. It also deleted the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) as the payment to Bloomberg was considered a subscription fee, not for technical services. The issue of interest under Section 234C was restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal noted that the first ground was not pressed. For the second ground, the Tribunal referred to a co-owner's case where the CIT(A) acknowledged that some expenditure might have been incurred but doubted the exact amount due to lack of evidence. The CIT(A) then referred to the Sale Deed to estimate the expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the income from the LodhaSupremus project was already taxed in the hands of SNCML, and taxing it again in the hands of the assessee would result in double taxation. The assessee was considered a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) used by SNCML for construction.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Section 14A disallowance, stating it's not applicable when no exempt income is earned. It also upheld the allowance of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation, following High Court judgments.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. Since the tax effect was not controverted by the Revenue and was below the limit, the appeal was deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was defective due to the unexplained delay and the failure to cure the defect. Therefore, the appeal could not be admitted for hearing.

The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was based were subsequently deleted by the Tribunal itself, the penalty could not survive. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that once the assessee provides the identity, PAN, and addresses of the share applicants, the AO cannot treat the share application money as the assessee's undisclosed income. The AO can proceed to reopen the individual assessments of the applicants if necessary.

The Tribunal held that all appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect did not exceed Rs. 20 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. Therefore, all appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the market value of the lease rights on the date of allotment should be considered as the cost of acquisition. The matter was remanded to the AO to determine the fair market value as on the date of the lease agreement.

The tribunal found the assessee's explanation plausible and, in the interest of natural justice, decided to provide another opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that capital gains cannot be taxed until the consideration (in this case, the built-up area) is received or accrued. Since the project was not complete and the assessee had not received the built-up area, no capital gain arose in the assessment year.