ITAT Mumbai Judgments — May 2021

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer made additions based on assumptions and presumptions. Considering the assessee's submission of additional evidence and the revenue's lack of objection, the Tribunal restored the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO's order making additions was illegal and unsustainable as it exceeded the directions of the CIT and failed to issue proper notices. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete all disallowances and accept the return in toto.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme' and received Form-3. The assessee wished to withdraw the appeal.

The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and the Revenue did not oppose the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and received Form-3. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020' and received Form-3. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which mandates that no appeal should be filed where the tax effect is below Rs. 50 lakhs. This circular is also applicable to pending cases.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted an opportunity of hearing.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' and its declaration was accepted. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as prayed by the assessee.

The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. The revenue did not oppose the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that while e-filing is mandatory, the assessee faced technical difficulties. To meet the ends of justice, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020' and received Form-3. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied the weighted deduction merely because the registration of the donee institution was subsequently withdrawn with retrospective effect, especially when the donation was made before the withdrawal. The Explanation to Section 35(1)(ii) supports this.

The Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeal is required to be withdrawn. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' and their declaration was accepted. Consequently, the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal.

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

The Tribunal noted that once a matter is settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the related appeals are to be withdrawn. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020. As the scheme resolves the dispute, the appeal is to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty. It found no illegality or infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision, particularly as the income addition was based on an estimation of bogus purchases.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas Scheme' and received the necessary form. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the addition is sustained on an estimated basis. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn because the assessee opted to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. Liberty was granted to recall the order if the dispute is not settled.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO. The AO failed to establish a direct nexus between the seized material and the assessee's income or business activities, and the admissions made were not corroborated by independent evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own prior ruling that TDS provisions were not applicable to the assessee's transactions with distributors. It also agreed that software maintenance expenses were revenue in nature.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal at this stage, granting the assessee liberty to revive it if their declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme is not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases was well-reasoned and in accordance with settled legal principles, particularly following the ratio in Simit P. Seth.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied the weighted deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) due to the subsequent withdrawal of recognition by the CBDT, especially when the donation was made before the withdrawal. The Explanation to Section 35(1)(ii) supports this view.

The Tribunal found that the ad-hoc disallowance of administrative expenses was not warranted as there was no allegation of bogus expenses or fraud. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation beyond 8 years was permissible. This was based on decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court, which the revenue could not controvert.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting the assessee's decision to settle the disputes under the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The assessee retains the liberty to seek restoration if the settlement is not finalized.

The Tribunal held that the property rights were created in the hands of the assessee's father in 1974, and the assessee acquired them through inheritance. Payments made later were for settling claims, not for purchase consideration, thus Section 56(2)(vii) was not applicable.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s findings and restored the entire disputed issue to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to file revised returns, and the AO was to independently verify the income offered in the hands of the co-owners.

The Tribunal held that the AO had already considered the issue of bogus purchases and made an addition based on its assessment. The PCIT's differing opinion on the percentage of addition did not render the AO's order erroneous or prejudicial to revenue, especially when the AO had made inquiries.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, following the CBDT circulars that enhanced the monetary limits for filing appeals. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal but kept open the option for the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application if the issue fell under specific exceptions.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' and their declaration was accepted. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty, agreeing that additions made on an estimation basis do not automatically lead to liability under Section 271(1)(c) as it requires concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, citing the Vivad Se Vishvas Scheme and a Madras High Court decision. The assessee was given liberty to recall the appeal if the scheme did not succeed.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to cancel the penalty. It was held that the penalty was not sustainable as the additions were made on an ad-hoc or estimated basis, and the Revenue failed to prove concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal noted that similar issues for preceding assessment years were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the AO for fresh decision.

The tribunal noted that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, and the revenue did not oppose the withdrawal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's submission that the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of bogus purchases, following a previous ITAT ruling in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year with similar facts and GP rates.

The Tribunal held that the addition made in the assessment order cannot be a gateway for automatic levy of penalty. Considering the assessee offered the income and provided explanations, and that the mistake was attributed to the accountant, the penalty was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that 'Ladderup Corporate Advisors Pvt Ltd' was not functionally similar to the assessee and should be excluded from the list of comparables. Conversely, 'Cyber Media Research Limited' was found to be functionally comparable and should be included.

The Tribunal held that the dividends received by the assessee were not taxable in India. It found that the income was treaty-protected under Article 22(1) of the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.

The Tribunal found that the AO's estimation of Gross Profit at 12.5% was on the higher side, considering the typical GP range for trading in metals. The CIT(A)'s estimation of 5% was found to be reasonable.

The Tribunal found the disallowance made by the AO to be on the higher side. The GP estimated at 12.5% by the CIT(A) was considered reasonable and accepted by the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance for leave salary, agreeing that it is not a statutory liability attracting Section 43B(f). However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the grant, holding that it was taxable as its utilization was claimed as a deduction. The mark-to-market loss on forward contracts was allowed as a business loss.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) which had restricted the addition to 5% of the bogus purchases, considering the assessee's declared GP. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.