ITAT Mumbai Judgments — June 2021

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the settlement failed.

The Tribunal restricted the expense disallowance to 5% for AY 2013-14 and confirmed 5% for AY 2014-15. Depreciation disallowance was restricted to 10% of the claim to account for potential personal use.

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 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that advertising, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenditure incurred by the assessee is not an international transaction. It also decided that certain expenses were not in the nature of AMP expenses and that the issue of refund of dividend distribution tax should be restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal, by respectfully following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal. The earlier decision had allowed the provision for loss on contracts based on accounting principles and the provision for doubtful debts in book profit computation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the profit element at 12.5% on bogus purchases, finding no infirmity in the order. The revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in taxing the entire expected profit in the first year of the MOU, as the project was not completed and the income had not fully accrued. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that since the original assessment orders, on which the penalty proceedings were based, were set aside by the ITAT and restored to the AO for fresh assessment, the penalty orders could not survive. The penalty orders were therefore non-maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay, as the assessee was awaiting the outcome of a Section 154 application. The Tribunal further noted that the CIT(A) erred in adjudicating the merits 'academically' without proper consideration of case laws. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest expenditure can be made if interest-free advances were given out of interest-free funds available with the assessee. Since the assessee demonstrated that the advances were out of its own interest-free funds, the disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted a thorough inquiry and accepted the assessee's explanation with supporting evidence. Therefore, the assessment order was not erroneous, and the PCIT wrongly invoked Section 263. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in an identical case.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest expenditure can be made if interest-free advances were given out of interest-free funds available with the assessee. Since the assessee demonstrated that the advances were out of its own interest-free funds, the disallowance was deleted.

The tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the VSVS scheme was accepted and Form-5 was issued. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not justified when the disallowance is estimated and the assessee's conduct is not contumacious. The revenue's plea regarding information from the sales tax department was also rejected.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal for the same assessment year had already been disposed of by the Tribunal, which had quashed the assessment for want of jurisdiction. The revenue's appeal was therefore rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A). It reasoned that the addition was based on an estimate and suspicion, not concrete evidence of inaccurate particulars or concealment, and that payments were made through banking channels.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that an assessee can claim a legitimate deduction even if it was inadvertently omitted from the original return, and such a claim can be made during assessment or appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal held that since the addition was made on an estimated basis and the assessee provided documentary evidence and made payments through banking channels, it cannot be alleged that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed income. Furthermore, the tax effect was below the monetary limit, making the appeal not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that if the payee has accounted for the interest income in its books and paid taxes thereon, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is warranted. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence to verify these facts.

The Tribunal held that the lease of the property for business purposes, such as housing staff and guests, was proven. However, an ad-hoc disallowance of 20% of the rent was accepted due to potential personal usage. The disallowance of interest on the security deposit was deleted.

The Tribunal held that if the payee has accounted for the interest income in its books and paid taxes thereon, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is warranted. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence to verify these facts.

The Tribunal held that the funds received from the company were not deemed dividend as they were part of ongoing business transactions. Regarding the agricultural land exemption, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the new claim under Section 54B.

The Tribunal held that loans taken from close relatives for the purpose of higher education, especially to meet immediate needs, do not warrant a penalty under section 271D. The penalty was deleted as there was no intention to avoid tax or defraud the revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow additional depreciation, noting that similar issues were settled in favour of the assessee in previous years. Regarding employee contributions, the Tribunal agreed that if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, disallowance is not warranted, following judicial precedents.

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

The Tribunal held that dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits is not sustainable. It emphasized that orders must adhere to principles of natural justice and that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the case on its merits.

The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeals as not maintainable. This decision was based on a CBDT circular directing withdrawal of appeals where the tax effect is below a certain threshold, which was applicable in this case.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when disallowance is estimated and purchases are supported by vouchers and banking transactions. The assessee's conduct was not found to be contumacious.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when disallowance is estimated and purchases are supported by vouchers and banking transactions. The assessee's conduct was not found to be contumacious.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when disallowance is estimated and purchases are supported by vouchers and banking transactions. The assessee's conduct was not found to be contumacious.

The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied when additions are made on an ad-hoc estimation basis, as there is no conclusive proof of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee offered income on a presumptive basis, which was accepted by the AO, the penalty could not be levied. The Tribunal relied on a precedent where penalty was not leviable when income was determined on an estimation basis.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay, as the assessee was awaiting the outcome of a Section 154 application. The Tribunal further noted that the CIT(A) erred in adjudicating the merits 'academically' without proper consideration of case laws. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay, as the assessee was awaiting the outcome of a Section 154 application. The Tribunal further noted that the CIT(A) erred in adjudicating the merits 'academically' without proper consideration of case laws. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay, as the assessee was awaiting the outcome of a Section 154 application. The Tribunal further noted that the CIT(A) erred in adjudicating the merits 'academically' without proper consideration of case laws. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

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

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were not substantiated, the assessee's business nature implied actual procurement of goods. Therefore, estimating the profit element embedded in these transactions was justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay, as the assessee was awaiting the outcome of a Section 154 application. The Tribunal further noted that the CIT(A) erred in adjudicating the merits 'academically' without proper consideration of case laws. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) should only consider investments that yielded exempt income during the relevant year, aligning with established legal principles.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay, as the assessee was awaiting the outcome of a Section 154 application. The Tribunal further noted that the CIT(A) erred in adjudicating the merits 'academically' without proper consideration of case laws. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that while the assessee couldn't prove the genuineness of purchases from the declared source, the entire purchase amount cannot be disallowed. Only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additions are made on an estimated basis, especially when there is no conclusive proof of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additions are made on an estimation basis, as this does not automatically imply concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in deleting the penalty.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that while the source of purchases was unverifiable, the fact of purchase was not in doubt. Therefore, only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be disallowed.

The Tribunal treated the appeal as dismissed and withdrawn, granting liberty to the assessee to have it restored if the Vivad Se Viswas declaration is later declared bad in law.

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

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 held that disallowance of a claimed expenditure does not automatically imply furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The assessee's conduct was not found to be contumacious, and therefore, penalty was not leviable.

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