ITAT Mumbai Judgments — October 2018

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) allowing the claim for depreciation. The issue was held to be covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the Tribunal's own earlier decision in the assessee's case.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the interest expenditure needed apportionment between investment and F&O activities. The issue was restored to the AO for re-examination and proper apportionment.

The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be imposed where income is estimated or additions are made on guesswork. Furthermore, the AO's initiation of penalty for concealment of income and imposition for furnishing inaccurate particulars, along with a non-specific notice, demonstrated a lack of application of mind, making the penalty order bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were bad in law due to non-application of mind by the AO and violation of natural justice. The failure to specify the charge prejudiced the assessee's right to defend themselves.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was invalid because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This vagueness disabled the assessee from properly defending themselves.

The Tribunal held that the recovery of the document alone is not sufficient to make an addition, especially when the assessee provided a plausible explanation and the document lacked corroboration. The presumption under Section 292C is rebuttable, and the AO failed to conduct further inquiries.

The Tribunal held that the failure to submit a Consent Waiver Form, which the assessee was asked to execute, does not constitute a default under Section 131(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This section pertains to compelling the production of documents already in possession.

The Tribunal held that the failure to submit a Consent Waiver Form, which the assessee was asked to execute, does not constitute a default under Section 131(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This section pertains to compelling the production of documents already in possession.

The Tribunal held that the failure to submit a Consent Waiver Form, which the assessee was asked to execute, does not constitute a default under Section 131(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This section pertains to compelling the production of documents already in possession.

The Tribunal held that the failure to submit a Consent Waiver Form, which the assessee was asked to execute, does not constitute a default under Section 131(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This section pertains to compelling the production of documents already in possession.

The Tribunal held that the failure to submit a Consent Waiver Form, which the assessee was asked to execute, does not constitute a default under Section 131(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This section pertains to compelling the production of documents already in possession, not the execution of new ones.

The Tribunal held that the failure to submit a Consent Waiver Form, which the assessee was asked to execute, does not constitute a default under Section 131(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This section pertains to compelling the production of documents already in possession.

The Tribunal held that the failure to submit a Consent Waiver Form, which the assessee was asked to execute, does not constitute a default under Section 131(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This section pertains to compelling the production of documents already in possession.

The Tribunal held that appropriate adjustments for working capital and risk are necessary for determining ALP. It found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order allowing these adjustments, considering the assessee's role as a trader.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity by the AO to produce evidence. Therefore, the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence. The Tribunal allowed the additional evidence in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the bonafide reasons provided by the assessee's auditor and relying on various judicial precedents that emphasize substantial justice over technicalities. The appeal was then decided on its merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the deduction of interest expenditure under Section 24(b) for Dhanwatay House property. The interest pertained to borrowed funds used for the property itself, not for investment in the AOP, and thus could be set off against house property income.

The Tribunal held that the failure to submit a Consent Waiver Form, which the assessee was asked to execute, does not constitute a default under Section 131(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This section pertains to compelling the production of documents already in possession.

The Tribunal held that the failure to submit a Consent Waiver Form, which the assessee was asked to execute, does not constitute a default under Section 131(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This section pertains to compelling the production of documents already in possession.

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed by the AO was barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(a) for certain additions/disallowances. For another disallowance, it held that since the assessee made a complete disclosure, penalty was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that the failure to submit a Consent Waiver Form, which the assessee was asked to execute, does not constitute a default under Section 131(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This section pertains to compelling the production of documents already in possession.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal by deleting the disallowance of freight charges, relying on the decisions in CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. and Riviera Home Furnishing v. Addl. CIT. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order based on the principle of consistency and the filing of Form 56G.

The Tribunal held that the failure to submit a Consent Waiver Form, which the assessee was asked to execute, does not constitute a default under Section 131(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This section pertains to compelling the production of documents already in possession.

The Tribunal held that expenses incurred to maintain the entity and revive the business during a temporary lull are allowable. It also noted that a separate disclosure was made to cover discrepancies, making disallowance of expenses redundant to that extent. The increase in salary was justified by new hires and increased responsibilities.

The Tribunal held that the failure to submit a Consent Waiver Form, which the assessee was asked to execute, does not constitute a default under Section 131(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This section pertains to compelling the production of documents already in possession.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the unproved purchases, following the High Court's view that only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income.

The Tribunal held that the failure to submit a Consent Waiver Form, which the assessee was asked to execute, does not constitute a default under Section 131(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This section pertains to compelling the production of documents already in possession.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal by deleting the disallowance of freight charges, relying on the decisions in CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. and Riviera Home Furnishing v. Addl. CIT. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order based on the principle of consistency and the filing of Form 56G.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty order was also set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) as long as the constructed residential units, as per approved plans, have a built-up area of less than 1000 sq. ft., even if they are later merged. The Tribunal also confirmed that income from leasing unsold flats is eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal held that the failure to submit a Consent Waiver Form, which the assessee was asked to execute, does not constitute a default under Section 131(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This section pertains to compelling the production of documents already in possession.

The Tribunal held that the failure to submit a Consent Waiver Form, which the assessee was asked to execute, does not constitute a default under Section 131(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This section pertains to compelling the production of documents already in possession.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the unproved purchases, following the High Court's view that only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit at 12.5% of the impugned purchases, rather than disallowing the entire purchase amount. This was based on the principle that only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income.

The Tribunal held that the failure to submit a Consent Waiver Form, which the assessee was asked to execute, does not constitute a default under Section 131(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This section pertains to compelling the production of documents already in possession.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal had been set aside to the AO for fresh assessment. Consequently, the penalty order was also set aside, with liberty to the AO to pass a fresh penalty order if necessary after the fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the failure to submit a Consent Waiver Form, which the assessee was asked to execute, does not constitute a default under Section 131(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This section pertains to compelling the production of documents already in possession.

The Tribunal held that the assessee made a bonafide mistake in calculating the LTCG and that the revised return of income, which corrected the error, was accepted by the Department. Therefore, there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.

The Tribunal held that the failure to submit a Consent Waiver Form, which the assessee was asked to execute, does not constitute a default under Section 131(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This section pertains to compelling the production of documents already in possession.

The Tribunal held that Section 271AAA is applicable only when a search under Section 132 has been initiated against the assessee. Since no search was conducted in the assessee's case, the penalty was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the necessary satisfaction before invoking Section 14A read with Rule 8D. Therefore, the disallowance of administrative expenses cannot be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record dissatisfaction or prove a nexus between expenses and exempt income, thus disallowing expenses under Section 14A was unjustified. Consequently, the increase in book profit under Section 115JB became infructuous.

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

The Tribunal held that the profit earned by the assessee on purchase and sale of shares, disclosed as capital gains and supported by delivery-based transactions, should be assessed as capital gains and not business income, considering past assessments accepted this treatment.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 is not applicable to amounts received in prior years and that Section 2(22)(e) applies to the shareholder, not the company paying the advance. Therefore, both additions were deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly addressed crucial issues, including the nature of the security deposit and the validity of a protective assessment. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the 12.5% profit rate confirmed by the CIT(A) was on the higher side, considering the nature of the assessee's business and the fact that VAT was paid on these purchases. Therefore, a further deduction was allowed.

The Tribunal found that the 12.5% profit rate confirmed by the CIT(A) was on the higher side, considering the nature of the assessee's business and the fact that VAT was paid on these purchases. Therefore, a further deduction was allowed.

The Tribunal, following a previous year's decision in the assessee's own case, deleted the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the AO had accepted the turnover and had not rejected the books of accounts.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order ex-parte without ensuring proper service of notice and without affording a fair opportunity to the assessee, violating the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits.