ITAT Mumbai Judgments — December 2020

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not act as a work contractor and had no right to sell units, thus no income arose in its hands. It also found that there was no conversion of a capital asset into stock-in-trade by the assessee, negating the applicability of Section 45(2).

The Tribunal held that no real income accrued on the investment due to legal proceedings initiated by the assessee, thus setting aside the addition for accrued interest. The addition for the unsecured loan of Rs. 50,000 was confirmed due to lack of substantiation. The issue of trading loss was restored to the AO for verification.

Following a Madras High Court order, the ITAT treated the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to seek restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme outcome is unfavorable.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment. The assessee was granted an opportunity for cross-examination.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the scheme application fails.

The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance of purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted. The addition should be limited to the profit element embedded in such purchases, bringing the gross profit rate to that of genuine purchases.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. Liberty was granted to revive the appeals if the scheme application fails.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing an opportunity for the assessee to be heard or rectify the alleged defect. Such an action violates the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was not justified due to lack of tangible material. The reasons provided by the AO were insufficient to form a belief that income had escaped assessment.

The Tribunal, following a previous order for AY 2007-08 with identical facts, upheld the CIT(A)'s estimation of 25% addition. Therefore, the revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The tribunal, following a precedent from the Madras High Court, decided to dismiss the appeal. This dismissal is conditional on the assessee's intention to use the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the loan transactions. The AO failed to conduct proper inquiries or present material to disprove the assessee's claims.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal, following a Madras High Court decision, because the assessee intended to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.

The Tribunal held that the 'Data Processing Cost' paid by the assessee's branch to its Head Office does not constitute 'Royalty' and is not subject to withholding tax. It also held that Section 14A is not applicable as the assessee did not earn any exempt income.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme' application fails to mature.

Following a High Court order, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) could not dismiss the appeal ex-parte on a hyper-technical ground without providing an opportunity of hearing. Such action violates the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they opted for the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the addition was based on surmise and conjecture, as there was no evidence that the assessee received the donation back. Following its own precedent in similar cases involving the same trust, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the AO for verification of recovery efforts, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in TRF Ltd. The Tribunal also directed the AO to treat the interest income as business income, as consistently followed by the assessee and accepted by revenue in earlier years.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivaad se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this withdrawal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that since the assessee's sales were not disputed, the entire bogus purchases could not be added. The profit element embedded in such transactions is what should be taxed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. It also noted that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3), implying subsequent compliance, which negated the willful nature of the earlier default.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. It also noted that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3), implying subsequent compliance, which negated the willful nature of the earlier default.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide evidence that the Trust did not have a valid registration on the date of donation and that the assessee was denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the notional addition of 2% commission on sales, which were already included in the assessee's income, was unsustainable. The same sale cannot be treated as both genuine (income included) and bogus (commission added).

Following a High Court precedent, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.