ITAT Mumbai Judgments — January 2020

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection on the grounds of low tax effect. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing the exclusion of certain comparables and restoring an additional ground for de novo examination.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that once the Section 263 order was quashed by the Tribunal, all subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 263, were invalid. Therefore, the assessment order was void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that they did not receive the notice of hearing. In the interest of justice, the ex-parte order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal held that the issue of interest disallowance needed fresh determination by the AO due to lack of proper verification. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal found that the AO incorrectly considered total investments instead of only those yielding exempt income for disallowance calculation.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a plausible explanation or substantiation for the delay in obtaining the tax audit report. The submission regarding the senior partner's illness was not supported by medical evidence for the relevant period.

The tribunal held that the appeal had become academic and infructuous due to the recall of the co-ordinate bench's order. The dismissal of the appeal would not have any bearing on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the nature of the lease premium. However, the PCIT erred in deciding the nature of the receipt himself instead of directing the AO to do so.

The Tribunal held that the entire alleged bogus purchases could not be added as the sales were not doubted. It directed that only the suppressed Gross Profit (GP) on these purchases should be added, estimating a GP of 12.5% over the assessee's declared GP.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection on the grounds of low tax effect. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing the exclusion of certain comparables and restoring an additional ground for de novo examination.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee during the relevant assessment year. Other grounds raised by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a statutory obligation to dispose of appeals on merits and cannot summarily dismiss them for non-prosecution. The CIT(A) must apply their mind to all issues arising from the impugned order.

The Tribunal noted that while the trust was in its preliminary stage, the CIT(E) is empowered to examine the objects and genuineness of activities. Since the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence of its activities, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the payment to Kamladevi K Agarwal, stating it was capitalized and no depreciation was claimed. It dismissed the appeal concerning the payment to Bombay Municipal School, upholding the CIT(A)'s apportionment. The Tribunal also allowed the appeal regarding the unsecured loan, finding sufficient evidence of genuineness and creditworthiness.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal held that the late fee under Section 234E could not be levied for the period prior to June 1, 2015, as the relevant amendment to Section 200A was effective from that date. The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision on this matter.

The Tribunal held that roaming/interconnectivity charges are not fees for technical services, thus Section 194J is not applicable. It also held that depreciation on 3G spectrum is allowable under Section 32, following previous decisions.

The Tribunal held that the AO is obligated to record satisfaction regarding the incorrectness of the assessee's claim before invoking Section 14A and Rule 8D. Since the AO failed to do so, the enhanced disallowance was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal held that since the revision order under section 263, which formed the basis of the assessment, was itself quashed by a coordinate bench, the impugned assessment could not survive. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal, following its coordinate bench's decision and relying on various High Court judgments, found the CIT(A)'s order unreasonable. It directed the AO to restrict additions to 12.5% of the bogus purchases.

The Tribunal restored the issue of TDS credit to the AO for verification, stating that if income was assessed and the agent hadn't claimed credit, the assessee should receive credit. The initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) was dismissed as premature.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not validly served as it was done by affixture without demonstrating due diligence and compliance with CPC provisions for substituted service. Furthermore, the absence of a valid notice under Section 143(2) rendered the reassessment proceedings void.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' occurred earlier than the actual imposition. The preliminary acts by the AO, including discussions in the assessment order and references to the Additional CIT, constituted such action.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the cooperative society from deposits with banks is attributable to its business of providing credit facilities and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.