Loading ITAT cases…
4,677 tribunal orders from the Mumbai bench in 2021.
Showing 40 of 4,677 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 200A, which allowed for the computation of fees under Section 234E, were effective from June 1, 2015. Since the AO's intimations were issued prior to this date, the levy of late filing fees was not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete transfer pricing adjustments by considering 'pass-through costs'. It also confirmed the allowance of market research expenses as revenue expenditure and depreciation on plant and machinery, following previous consistent rulings.
The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 200A, which allowed for the computation of fees under Section 234E, were effective from June 1, 2015. Since the AO's intimations were issued prior to this date, the levy of late filing fees was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 200A, which allowed for the computation of fees under Section 234E, were effective from June 1, 2015. Since the AO's intimation was issued prior to this date, the levy of late filing fees was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the assessee did not 'make available' any technical knowledge or expertise to the Indian entities, and therefore, the amounts received were not taxable as fees for technical services under the India-UK DTAA.
The Tribunal held that the difference in creditor balances did not constitute expenditure under Section 69C as there was no evidence of expenditure incurred. It also held that employee advances were for business purposes, not non-business advances.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is triggered only by non-deduction or non-payment of TDS, not by the failure to pay interest on delayed deposit. Therefore, the disallowance was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the provident fund contribution was deposited within the extended due date, and the ESIC contribution was deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. Therefore, both disallowances were incorrect.
The Tribunal held that disallowing expenses based solely on a comparison of their ratio to turnover with the previous year is erroneous. It also found that the sum received from the related UK company was genuine, especially considering the shareholder's confirmation and the small amount involved.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest expenditure, finding that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient interest-free funds for the advances made from borrowed funds. It also upheld the disallowance of travelling expenses due to the assessee's inability to substantiate the business purpose with documentary evidence.
The Tribunal found the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]'s approach to be superficial, as mere banking channel transactions and confirmations do not establish genuineness. The matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the facts were identical to a previous case where a favorable order was passed for the assessee's cousin. The assessee's purchase and sale of shares were through banking channels and stock exchanges.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in the business of financiers as per its partnership deed and past assessment records. The write-off of the loan was allowable as a bad debt under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide on merits. Since the appeal was dismissed without considering the merits, the case was remanded.
The provided excerpt does not contain the Tribunal's decision on the appeal. It only states the parties involved, the assessment year, the authorities from whom the appeal originates, and the dates of hearing and pronouncement. Therefore, the Tribunal's findings on any specific issues, the reasoning behind those findings, the ratio decidendi, and any operative directions or relief granted are not available in this text. No issue was expressly left undecided as the outcome is not recorded.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 were invalid as no substantive addition was made in any other hand. Consequently, the protective additions made by the AO were quashed.
The Tribunal found the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]'s approach to be superficial, as mere banking channel transactions and confirmations do not establish genuineness. The matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]'s approach to be superficial, as mere banking channel transactions and confirmations do not establish genuineness. The matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The ITAT held that penalty cannot be levied on an estimated addition, following a previous precedent. It also held that if the quantum addition is deleted, the penalty on that addition cannot survive.
The Tribunal noted that for earlier assessment years with identical facts, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh working of the disallowance. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the AO for a fresh determination.
The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the CIT under section 263 was barred by limitation. The consultancy fees were disclosed in the original return, and the revision was initiated beyond the prescribed time limit from the original assessment order.
The Tribunal found the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]'s approach to be superficial, as mere banking channel transactions and confirmations do not establish genuineness. The matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that only investments yielding exempt income during the year should be considered for disallowance under Section 14A, following the Delhi High Court's decision in ACB Investments Ltd. The disallowance was directed to be calculated accordingly.
The Tribunal held that compensation paid for alternative accommodation was not in the nature of rent, thus disallowing disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). It also found that the AO's rejection of books and additions were not justified, especially considering similar treatment in subsequent years.
The Tribunal held that once the CIT(A) deemed the appeal infructuous, it lacked the authority to issue further directions to the AO. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had filed the required forms within the due date, making the CIT(A)'s directions unwarranted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted documentary evidence for these payments, but the AO and CIT(A) had not had an opportunity to examine them. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal found the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]'s approach to be superficial, as mere banking channel transactions and confirmations do not establish genuineness. The matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the sharing of fees with the holding company was a profit-sharing arrangement and the AO had misunderstood the facts. It also found that the bad debts written off were not subject to sharing with the holding company as no services were availed from it for that specific project. The Tribunal further ruled that the bonus payments were made in the ordinary course of business and were allowable as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record satisfaction regarding the assessee's claim of no expenditure for earning exempt income. The AO also incorrectly considered all investments instead of only those yielding exempt income.
The Tribunal held that interest paid on borrowed funds deployed for business purposes is deductible. Regarding Section 14A, it was found that no expenses were claimed against exempt income, making the disallowance unwarranted.
The Tribunal held that the rental income from properties leased out by the assessee should be treated as 'business income' and not 'income from house property'. The claim for bad debts was not discussed in detail in this excerpt.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh decision, citing the ex-parte nature of the proceedings and the need to consider findings of higher appellate authorities in earlier years.
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of bogus purchases, following the precedent set in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal also noted that certain grounds raised by the revenue were not liable for adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment under Section 147/148 were not proper and did not establish escapement of income. The AO had not applied his mind to the information received, and the reopening was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, following the precedent set by the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth. The Tribunal found this proportion justifiable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition, as the transactions were found to be for commercial expediency and part of a running account for business purposes, not loans intended to circumvent tax laws. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions in similar cases for the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte without giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It found that the AO levied the penalty based on an estimation of net profit without establishing that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed information.
The Tribunal held that a 12.5% disallowance on account of purchases would serve the ends of justice, considering that the assessee's sales were not doubted. This decision was influenced by a jurisdictional High Court ruling on similar facts.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 154 as the reclassification involved a change of opinion, not a mistake apparent from the record. Such debatable issues cannot be rectified under Section 154 after a regular assessment under Section 143(3).