ITAT Mumbai Judgments — February 2021

Following the Madras High Court's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to restore it if the scheme's outcome is unfavorable.

Following the Madras High Court's precedent, the ITAT treated the assessee's appeals as withdrawn due to their opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.

The Tribunal held that a 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not justified when sales are not doubted. It directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to the extent of the gross profit rate on such purchases, aligning it with the rate of genuine purchases.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the deletion of additions on account of deemed rent and unexplained stamp duty, finding no infirmity. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s view on disallowing only 20% of security and maintenance charges related to the let-out portion of the property.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the omission to add back the deferred tax asset write-off was an inadvertent human error and a bona fide computation error, not an intentional concealment. The financial statements clearly disclosed this item. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court, dismissed the appeal. However, the assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if their declaration under the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme was not accepted by the Revenue.

The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, treated the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn, allowing the assessee liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution is not in their favour.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking and laconic order by deleting a substantial penalty without dealing with the facts and issues. The order of the CIT(A) was not sustainable on this ground alone.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if their declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is not accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal solely on the grounds of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The merits of the addition were not considered.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme is not accepted.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the assessee, being a co-operative credit society dealing only with its members, is not a co-operative bank and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of bogus purchases. It noted that since the corresponding sales were not doubted, the entire purchases could not be added as income.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the revenue's appeal. It agreed that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable on additions made on an estimated basis when all relevant facts were disclosed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record the necessary satisfaction before invoking Section 14A and Rule 8D. Therefore, the disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue requested the appeal be dismissed.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue requested the dismissal of the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue requested the dismissal of the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the assessee's request.

The Tribunal, following a High Court order in a similar case, treated the appeal as disposed of by withdrawing it. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme resolution was not in their favor.

The CIT(A) reduced the addition to 12.5% GP rate, citing acceptance of this rate in the assessee's own case for a prior year. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding it well-reasoned.

The Tribunal followed its earlier decisions in the assessee's own case for subsequent assessment years, which had allowed the deduction. The Tribunal found no change in facts and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact charge for which the penalty was levied. This lack of clarity vitiated the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that the AO failed to specify the exact charge for which the penalty was levied. This lack of clarity vitiated the penalty proceedings.