ITAT Mumbai Judgments — March 2021

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erroneously adjudicated grounds of appeal that did not belong to the assessee, and also noted discrepancies in the appellant's name. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and requested withdrawal. The Revenue did not object to this course of action.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission and the filing of Form-3 under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on an addition made on an estimated basis. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the penalty on this ground.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the assessee's submission and the provisions of the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

The Tribunal noted a discrepancy in the appeal number mentioned in the Vivad se Vishwas declaration but accepted the assessee's clarification and prayer for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal proceeded to dispose of the appeal due to the assessee's non-compliance. The specific decision on the stamp duty addition is not detailed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding the Vivad se Vishwas declaration and the prayer to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to this course of action.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the genuineness of the purchases, and the AO had not conducted further investigations to disprove the proprietor's statement.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were not fully substantiated, estimating profit at 6% on disputed purchases was appropriate. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee does not constitute an international transaction, and no transfer pricing adjustment can be made. It also upheld the assessee's claims regarding technical support services and depreciation on testing equipment.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular exception applies only to quantum assessment proceedings, not penalty proceedings. Penalty and assessment proceedings are distinct and separate.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and requested withdrawal. The Revenue did not object to this course of action.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the necessary declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and had requested to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to this course of action.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. The assessee had provided purchase invoices, ledger accounts, stock register, and bank statements.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of appeals. Following the decision of the Madras High Court, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the assessee had also recorded the purchases in the purchase return register, indicating the goods were returned. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no evidence to doubt the return of goods.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the GP addition to 5% on bogus purchases. While the assessee provided documents for goods and payments, they failed to prove the authenticity of the dealers.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the addition is an estimate based on profit rate of alleged bogus purchases, especially when the assessee provided supporting details. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was confirmed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. It noted that the assessee had provided supporting documentation and that the mere absence of transportation bills did not render the purchases bogus.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of appeals. Following the decision of the Madras High Court, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of appeals. Following the decision of the Madras High Court, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of appeals. Following the decision of the Madras High Court, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's contentions regarding litigation and the forced distress sale, which were supported by court filings. The Tribunal also noted that a registered valuation report, filed as additional evidence before the CIT(A), was not accepted. Considering that the assessee sought an opportunity to substantiate the claim with evidence before the income tax authorities, and to meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the disputed issue was restored to the file of the AO for reconsideration. The AO was directed to consider the assessee's submissions and evidence, providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing and cooperation in submitting information. The ground of appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of appeals. Following the decision of the Madras High Court, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of appeals. Following the decision of the Madras High Court, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of appeals. Following the decision of the Madras High Court, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO. This was to examine the applicability of the Bombay High Court's ruling in CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. regarding the presumption of investment from interest-free funds.

The Tribunal held that since the addition was made on an estimated basis by the CIT(A), penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. The Tribunal reversed the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of appeals. Following the decision of the Madras High Court, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of appeals. Following the decision of the Madras High Court, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of appeals. Following the decision of the Madras High Court, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of appeals. Following the decision of the Madras High Court, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of appeals. Following the decision of the Madras High Court, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme' was accepted and Form-3 was issued. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of appeals. Following the decision of the Madras High Court, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee requested to withdraw both appeals to avoid protracted litigation and buy peace of mind. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of appeals. Following the decision of the Madras High Court, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of appeals. Following the decision of the Madras High Court, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on an addition made on an estimated basis. Therefore, the AO was directed to delete the penalty.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit of ₹50 lacs. Since the appeal did not fall under any exceptions to the circular, it was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of appeals. Following the decision of the Madras High Court, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee requested to withdraw both appeals to avoid protracted litigation and buy peace of mind. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that if the revision order is invalid, any subsequent assessment order based on it becomes infructuous. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that once a debt is written off as irrecoverable in the assessee's accounts, it should be allowed as a deduction, citing the Supreme Court's decision in TRF Ltd. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order allowing the bad debt claim.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of appeals. Following the decision of the Madras High Court, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of appeals. Following the decision of the Madras High Court, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.