ITAT Mumbai Judgments — March 2021

The Tribunal, following a similar High Court order, treated the appeal as disposed of by being withdrawn.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

The Tribunal held that since the assessee opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme', the Revenue's appeals have become infructuous. The appeals were dismissed as such.

The Tribunal decided to treat the appeal as disposed of as withdrawn, following the assessee's decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loan by providing sufficient documentary evidence. The statement of Shri Gautam Jain, which was later retracted, could not be the sole basis for rejecting the assessee's explanation.

The Tribunal treated the appeal as disposed of by withdrawing it, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's resolution was not in their favor.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which provides an exception for quantum assessment proceedings, is not applicable to penalty proceedings. Penalty and assessment proceedings are distinct and separate.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to delete the addition on account of deemed dividend, finding that the assessee was not a shareholder in the lending company. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's grounds regarding disallowance of expenses and depreciation on assets at the MD's residence and the Section 14A disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempted dividend income. Therefore, the addition was restricted to the actual dividend income earned by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on estimated income. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was upheld.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's failure to comply with directions from lower authorities, decided to provide one more opportunity to substantiate the case with evidence. The issue was restored to the AO for limited verification and examination.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme', the Revenue's appeals have become infructuous. The appeals were dismissed as such.

The Tribunal held that disallowing remuneration to the firm when partners have offered it as income in their individual assessments leads to double taxation. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions that allowed such claims if the partnership deed authorized remuneration and it was offered to tax by the partners.

The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly accepted the income offered by the assessee by merging the policyholders' and shareholders' accounts. It also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order granting relief in respect of negative reserves.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own previous order for an earlier assessment year. Following the principle of preferring the view favorable to the assessee when conflicting High Court decisions exist, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the studio activity was incidental to the trust's main object of education and not a business activity. It further noted that since the trust's purpose was education, the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order allowing depreciation on an office premise even though it was not registered in the assessee's name, following the Supreme Court's decision in Mysore Minerals Ltd. The Tribunal also directed the capitalization of interest in the cost of securities, following a co-ordinate bench decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were charitable in nature, falling under the head 'education' and not 'advancement of any other object of general public utility'. Consequently, the proviso to Section 2(15) was not applicable, and the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for VSVS and the Revenue had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A). It held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars of income, especially when the purchases were made through account payee cheques and stock tally was produced.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal at this stage due to the assessee opting for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the scheme declaration fails to mature.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the assessee's wife had booked a flat with the same developer, paid by cheque, and later cancelled the booking, receiving a refund before the alleged cash transaction. The Tribunal concluded that the pen drive entry was likely a mistaken identity and lacked corroborative material.

The Tribunal held that the reopening notice was issued beyond the 4-year period and did not explicitly state the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the reopening was deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal followed its co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case involving another co-owner, Shri Nandlal R. Mishra. It held that the indexed cost of acquisition should be determined from the date the previous owner held the asset, not from when the assessee became the owner.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was invalid because the notice under Section 148 was not properly served on the assessee. The AO failed to ascertain the correct address from available sources like the PAN database or the last filed return.

The Tribunal held that payments for project-related services did not qualify as royalty or FTS under the India-Singapore DTAA, as the Indian subsidiary could not independently use the technical knowledge provided. The issue of cost recharge for an employee's salary was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments with co-operative banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) or Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Such income is taxable.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' was accepted and Form-3 was issued. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order allowing depreciation on an office premise even though it was not registered in the assessee's name, following the Supreme Court's decision in Mysore Minerals Ltd. The Tribunal also directed the capitalization of interest in the cost of securities, following a co-ordinate bench decision.

The CIT(A) rightly deleted the penalty. The tribunal found that the assessee had produced documentary evidence for purchases and payments, and the sales were not doubted, creating doubt about the purchases being bogus.

For AY 2001-02, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction for disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), finding it to be less than the Assessing Officer's disallowance. For AY 2004-05, the Tribunal remitted the issue regarding the computation of book profit under Section 115JB to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal to avail the benefits of the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme'. The Revenue had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee opted for VSVS, the Revenue's appeal became infructuous. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to revive if the settlement fails.

The Tribunal held that the reference made by the AO to the TPO was invalid as the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity of being heard before the reference. The Tribunal also noted that the Dispute Resolution Panel had deleted the adjustments on merits.

The Tribunal held that additions based on statements from entry providers without providing an opportunity for cross-examination were unsustainable. Additions related to entities not belonging to the 'tainted group' without incriminating material were also deleted.

The Tribunal held that additions based on statements of entry providers without providing cross-examination opportunities or confronting evidence are unsustainable. Additions related to entities not belonging to tainted groups or where no incriminating material was found were deleted.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) cannot be imposed when the assessment is completed under Section 143(3) and not under Section 144. The assessee's submission regarding change of address was considered realistic.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on income that has been added on an estimated basis. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. The Departmental Representative did not oppose the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in disposing of the penalty appeal without first disposing of the quantum appeal, as the outcome of the quantum appeal would affect the penalty. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in bogus transactions should be brought to tax. It found the CIT(A)'s estimation of GP to be on the higher side and restricted it to 6.5% of the bogus purchases.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in restricting the addition to 8% of bogus purchases. The Tribunal considered the estimated GP by the Assessing Officer to be on the higher side.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) wrongly restricted the addition. The addition was deleted as the items were purchased prior to 1999 and the assessee had declared substantial jewellery value in wealth tax returns.

The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn, following the precedent set by the Madras High Court regarding the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the scheme's outcome was unfavorable.

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

The Tribunal considered the assessee's withdrawal petition and the respondent's lack of opposition. It was held that appeals related to matters settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme are to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that additions based on statements from entry providers without providing an opportunity for cross-examination were unsustainable. Additions related to entities not belonging to the 'tainted group' without incriminating material were also deleted.

The Tribunal held that additions based on statements from entry providers without providing an opportunity for cross-examination were unsustainable. Additions related to entities not belonging to the 'tainted group' without incriminating material were also deleted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for various share transactions, including purchase and sale details, contract notes, and demat statements. The Revenue failed to point out any deficiencies in these documents.

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in bogus transactions should be brought to tax. It found the CIT(A)'s estimation of GP to be on the higher side and restricted it to 6.5% of the bogus purchases.