ITAT Mumbai Judgments — August 2018

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) should be deleted as the assessee had sufficient own funds to make the investments. For administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the disallowance needs to be recomputed considering only investments that yielded exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 10B. The fact that the business commenced before STPI registration does not disentitle the assessee from claiming the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition under Section 69C as the assessee had adequately explained the expenses and the AO failed to establish the conditions for its invocation. Furthermore, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, agreeing that the investments were made from own funds, thus not attracting disallowance of interest on borrowed funds.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application for recall if they intended to contest the appeal under specific conditions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal held that the purchases were not entirely rejected, and the addition was made on an estimated basis. The Tribunal found that the assessee could not be charged with furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the CIT(A) had correctly considered the joint ownership of the flat and the source of funds for its purchase, based on documentary evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. As the Revenue did not demonstrate any exceptions, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were covered by the CBDT circular which allows withdrawal of pending appeals below the specified tax limits. The Revenue could not establish any exceptions to this circular.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were covered by the CBDT circular and, in the absence of any exceptions, dismissed them as withdrawn. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall if exceptions were found.

The Tribunal, applying the CBDT Circular dated 11.07.2018, deemed the appeals as withdrawn/not pressed. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for re-institution if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's efforts to let out the property were reasonable, supported by letters to the builder who had previously helped find a tenant for another property. The authorities below unreasonably doubted the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were covered by the CBDT circular which allows withdrawal of pending appeals below the specified tax limits. The Revenue could not establish any exceptions to this circular.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were covered by the CBDT circular which allows withdrawal of pending appeals below the specified tax limits. The Revenue could not establish any exceptions to this circular.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on moulds used in manufacturing electronic goods should be allowed at 30%, following its own consistent precedents. The disallowance under Section 14A was also confirmed as restricted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application for recall if they intended to contest the appeal under specific conditions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application for recall if they intended to contest the appeal under specific conditions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application for recall if they intended to contest the appeal under specific conditions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application for recall if they intended to contest the appeal under specific conditions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application for recall if they intended to contest the appeal under specific conditions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application for recall if they intended to contest the appeal under specific conditions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application for recall if they intended to contest the appeal under specific conditions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application for recall if they intended to contest the appeal under specific conditions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application for recall if they intended to contest the appeal under specific conditions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application for recall if they intended to contest the appeal under specific conditions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application for recall if they intended to contest the appeal under specific conditions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application for recall if they intended to contest the appeal under specific conditions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application for recall if they intended to contest the appeal under specific conditions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application for recall if they intended to contest the appeal under specific conditions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) at 9% of the bogus purchases, considering it a reasonable measure to account for potential revenue leakage. The assessee failed to provide any contrary material or appear before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application for recall if they intended to contest the appeal under specific conditions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application for recall if they intended to contest the appeal under specific conditions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application for recall if they intended to contest the appeal under specific conditions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application for recall if they intended to contest the appeal under specific conditions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application for recall if they intended to contest the appeal under specific conditions mentioned in the circular.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not permissible in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. Since no exceptions applied, the appeal was deemed withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that if no exempt income is received by the assessee, then no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.

The Tribunal found that the AO had made the addition without conducting proper inquiries into the assessee's contentions regarding the source and application of the funds. The CIT(A) also failed to obtain a remand report. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere with the deletion of additions for undisclosed sales receipts. Similarly, the addition for inflated purchases was also dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that compensation paid to tenants for vacating premises is an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of a capital asset and is deductible. Regarding book profits, the Tribunal followed the Supreme Court ruling that AO cannot go beyond the P&L account except as provided in the Explanations.

The Tribunal held that mark-to-market losses on derivatives treated as stock-in-trade are allowable, following the principle of valuing closing stock at cost or market value, whichever is lower. CBDT instructions do not bind appellate authorities.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were covered by the CBDT circular which allows withdrawal of pending appeals below the specified tax limits. The Revenue could not establish any exceptions to this circular.

The Tribunal held that income from sale and purchase of securities by an FII is to be taxed as capital gains. It further affirmed that such income is not taxable in India under Article 13(6) of the India-Switzerland Tax Treaty, and the banking branch does not constitute a Permanent Establishment for this income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to arrange its affairs and follow a recognized method of accounting. Since the assessee consistently followed the project completion method, which is a recognized method, it was not required to be substituted by the percentage completion method.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular. As no exceptions applied, the appeal was deemed withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the reopening of the assessment but modified the addition. It ruled that only the profit element on bogus purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount, especially when corresponding sales were not disputed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not in consonance with the CBDT circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed, citing the CBDT circular that revised the monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue was granted liberty to approach for recall if exceptions applied.

The Tribunal, applying the CBDT circular, held that the appeal was not in consonance with the revised monetary limits. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal's tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department. As no exceptions applied, the appeal was deemed withdrawn.