ITAT Mumbai Judgments — June 2021

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 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the AO reopened the case based on a mere change of opinion without any new tangible material. The original assessment had already scrutinized and allowed the depreciation claim.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal to avail the benefits of the 'Viwad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The department had no objection to this withdrawal. The tribunal noted that the assessee's declaration under the scheme was accepted and Form-3 was issued.

The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's absence, decided to grant another opportunity for the assessee to present their case. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received Form-3 from the Revenue. Accepting the assessee's request, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that interest earned on unutilized grants parked in FDs, and the unutilized revenue grants themselves, could not be treated as income. This was based on government directives that such interest and grants had an overriding title in favor of the government and should be treated as part of the grant itself.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing evidence of identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders, and the AO failed to bring contrary evidence.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order, failing to deal with the issues raised by the assessee regarding the reopening of assessment and the merits of the addition. The Tribunal held that this was inconsistent with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing complete details of the payees, including their PAN, IT returns, and proof of payment through banking channels after deducting TDS. The inability to produce the payees during assessment was not a sole ground for disallowance.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-calculate the fair market value of the shares as on April 1, 1981, using a specific reverse indexation method. For the land sale, the Tribunal found that the stamp duty valuation was not conclusive and directed the AO to consider the actual sale consideration if the assessee could prove that the property was not eligible for TDR.

The Tribunal noted that the revenue's appeal had become infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue's appeal was accordingly dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the sales turnover was not in doubt, primary purchase documents were available, and payments were made through banking channels, the addition should be an estimation of the profit element. The CIT(A)'s estimation of 12.5% was deemed sufficient.

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 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 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 found that the CIT(A) erred in accepting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it, violating Rule 46A. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal to avail the benefit of the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. The Department had no objection to this request.

The tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case. The issue was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the sales turnover was not in doubt and payments were made through banking channels, it was a fit case to estimate the profit element. The CIT(A)'s estimation of 25% addition was considered sufficient to cover revenue leakage.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the ex-parte nature of the lower order, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity. The appeal was set aside to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication, with a direction to the assessee to explain the delay and present their case on merit.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and requested withdrawal of the appeal. The Tribunal accepted the request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that a disallowance of a claim, especially a minuscule portion of total purchases, does not automatically warrant a penalty under section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty based on Supreme Court and Bombay High Court precedents.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the profit element at 12.5% on the purchases, considering the assessee possessed primary documents and made payments through banking channels.

The Tribunal upheld the estimation of profit on the alleged bogus purchases, finding the 4% estimation by the CIT(A) to be fair. The reassessment proceedings and the service of notice under Section 148 were also deemed valid.