ITAT Mumbai Judgments — February 2021

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently demonstrated that transactions with AEs were at arm's length, considering the functions performed and costs incurred by the AEs. The CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and Form No. 3 was issued. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that lease income should be treated as business income, entitling the assessee to depreciation and business expense deductions. Retrenchment compensation was allowed to be amortized over five years.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to restore if the settlement was not finalized.

The Tribunal held that while additions were sustained, the explanation provided, even if not fully accepted, along with the reduction in additions, would not be a good ground for imposing a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) based on the Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. decision.

The Tribunal held that in an unabated assessment year, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Relying solely on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) without corroborating incriminating material is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271G could not be imposed due to the practical difficulties in preparing segmental details in the diamond industry. The assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance, bringing it under the purview of Section 273B.

The Tribunal held that assessments completed before the search date cannot be reopened under Section 153C without any incriminating material. Since the assessments had not abated and no new incriminating evidence was found, additions made under Section 153C were unsustainable.

The tribunal, following a precedent from the Madras High Court, dismissed the appeals with liberty to the assessee to seek restoration if their declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is not accepted.

The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to exclude certain companies from the comparable list for benchmarking international transactions and to re-adjudicate the issue of comparable selection for AMP expenses. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable. This was based on a CBDT circular directing withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold.

The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to exclude certain companies from the comparable list for benchmarking international transactions and to re-adjudicate the issue of comparable selection for AMP expenses. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that assessments completed before the search date cannot be reopened under Section 153C without any incriminating material. Since the assessments had not abated and no new incriminating evidence was found, additions made under Section 153C were unsustainable.

The Tribunal agreed to dismiss the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable. This decision was based on a CBDT circular directing withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were bad in law because the Assessing Officer failed to provide the assessees with copies of statements from third parties and denied them the opportunity for cross-examination, despite specific requests. This violated the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were bad in law because the Assessing Officer failed to provide the assessees with copies of statements from third parties and denied them the opportunity for cross-examination, despite specific requests. This violated the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the scheme did not resolve the matter.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were bad in law because the Assessing Officer failed to provide the assessees with copies of statements from third parties and denied them the opportunity for cross-examination, despite specific requests. This violated the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were bad in law because the Assessing Officer failed to provide the assessees with copies of statements from third parties and denied them the opportunity for cross-examination, despite specific requests. This violated the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a condition that if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, the appellant can seek restoration of the appeal. The Departmental Representatives did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a condition that if the matter is not resolved under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, the appellant can seek restoration of the appeal. The Departmental Representatives did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the payment for software license, even with database access, is not royalty. Following precedent, the payment is not taxable in India in the hands of the non-resident.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were bad in law because the Assessing Officer failed to provide the assessees with copies of statements from third parties and denied them the opportunity for cross-examination, despite specific requests. This violated the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were bad in law because the Assessing Officer failed to provide the assessees with copies of statements from third parties and denied them the opportunity for cross-examination, despite specific requests. This violated the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal agreed with the contention that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant is at liberty to point out exceptions if any.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the appeals should be disposed of. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome was not favorable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme was not accepted.

The Tribunal followed the Madras High Court's decision and disposed of the appeals as withdrawn, allowing the assessee to restore them if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme settlement is not favorable or accepted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on a technicality without giving the assessee an opportunity to rectify the defect. The Tribunal considered the incorrect verification an irregularity that could be cured.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020' and had filed the necessary application. Therefore, keeping the appeals pending would serve no purpose.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received acceptance. Consequently, the assessee requested withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal, following a Madras High Court order, treated the appeals as withdrawn since the assessees opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to the assessees to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome was not in their favor.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the appeals should be disposed of. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeals if the scheme's outcome was not favorable.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's failure to substantiate purchases, restricted the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchase value, following precedents.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Following a precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal with liberty to restore it if the scheme declaration is not accepted by the Revenue.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received acceptance. Consequently, the assessee requested withdrawal of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that there was a direct nexus between the interest income earned and the interest expenditure incurred, as both arose from the transfer of loans and liabilities between the assessee and its holding company. Therefore, the interest expenditure was allowable against the interest income.

The Tribunal deleted the transfer pricing adjustment, stating that export prices of a related party are not valid comparables for CUP. It also deleted the disallowance of club expenditure. Other grounds were either dismissed or remanded for fresh examination.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the addition for unverified purchases should be restricted to the extent of the Gross Profit (GP) rate of the assessee's genuine purchases. The AO's addition of 12.5% was considered arbitrary.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's Gross Profit (GP) rate was significantly lower than the estimated rate by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for recalculation.

The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal as they had opted for settlement under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to conclusively prove the genuineness of purchases from the specific party, the entire amount could not be disallowed. The addition should be restricted to the profit element, bringing the GP rate of these purchases in line with genuine purchases.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. This was based on the assessee opting for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020, and receiving a certificate from the Revenue.

The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 9% of alleged bogus purchases, considering the lower sales tax rate in Maharashtra compared to Gujarat. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the appeal should not be denied on technical grounds like delay, especially when the matter has merit. The Tribunal also noted that the CPC has no authority to reject the 80P deduction in a section 143(1) order.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, directing the Assessing Officer to allow set-off of the Gross Profit already shown by the assessee from the net addition of 12.5% on account of bogus purchases. The revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.