ITAT Mumbai Judgments — February 2022

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish the fair market value of the interest rate and that higher interest on unsecured loans can be a business necessity. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which stipulates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50 lakhs should not be filed.

The assessee, through its Authorized Representative, stated that it no longer wished to press the additional ground of appeal concerning education cess on income tax paid. The Revenue had no objection to this.

The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's power to revise the assessment order under Section 263, finding the AO's order to be erroneous and prejudicial to revenue due to lack of proper inquiry. However, it directed the AO to determine the correct addition for bogus purchases after verification.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not justified, following jurisdictional High Court decisions and other ITAT benches. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) was considered to have prospective application.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) adjudicated the issue without allowing the AO an opportunity for cross-examination and without conducting necessary inquiries. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal held that the re-opening of assessment was invalid as the AO merely relied on borrowed information without independent application of mind or tangible material. On merits, it was held that the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68 by proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transaction, including its repayment and interest payments. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the architect fees were inevitable for determining the FSI and the area to be transferred to authorities, making it essential for the transfer of development rights. Therefore, the deduction should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a cooperative bank due to its principal business being banking, and thus not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(4). The issue of gratuity fund interest was remanded for fresh consideration.

For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal found that the AO had made sufficient inquiry regarding the loss allowed, thus the CIT's revisionary order was set aside. For AY 2009-10 and 2010-11, the Tribunal found a lack of inquiry by the AO regarding the allowability of donations as business expenditure, upholding the CIT's revisionary orders.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the assessee's appeal. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to explain the source of the Rs. 1,00,000/- cash credit and the genuineness of the Rs. 4,50,000/- cash purchases, despite multiple opportunities.

The Tribunal held that excess expenditure incurred by a charitable trust in an earlier year is eligible to be set off against income in subsequent years. This decision followed the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT v/s Subros Educational Society, which dismissed the Revenue's review petition.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus under Section 68 of the Act by not producing the loan parties for cross-examination, despite notices being issued and the non-compliance being brought to the assessee's notice. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the tax audit report due to the procedural requirements of a PSU. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271B was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the AO's presumption that '#' symbol meant cash was not supported by evidence and was contradictory. The addition was based on rough working and estimates, not concrete proof.

The tribunal held that the addition on account of unearned revenue was not sustainable in light of previous ITAT orders and decided in favor of the assessee. The issue of ESOP expenses was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions made by the AO. It found that expenses incurred by MCGM and other contractees, as well as amounts declared in subsequent years or due to double reporting, were correctly excluded from the assessee's income.

The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted as genuine, the entire purchase amount cannot be treated as non-genuine. The addition should be restricted to the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases, considering the assessee's average gross profit ratio.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the unsecured loans, making the addition under Section 68 unsustainable. Consequently, the disallowance of interest was also reversed. For Section 14A, the disallowance was restricted to the extent of exempt income earned.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice and Rule 46A by relying on previous remand reports without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to respond to fresh evidence. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee. As a consequence of the withdrawal, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the second revised penalty order, which was cancelled by the CIT(A) on a technical ground (lack of prior JCIT approval), was rectifiable. Therefore, it was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for proper approval and re-passing of the order.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was permitted in accordance with the provisions of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the documents submitted by the assessee regarding the availability of its own funds for the advances. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the second revised penalty order, which was cancelled by the CIT(A) on a technical ground (lack of prior JCIT approval), was rectifiable. Therefore, it was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for proper approval and re-passing of the order.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding no direct or clinching evidence to support the AO's claim of 'on money' payments. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the data and the lack of proceedings against the assessee's husband, who was also involved.

The Tribunal found that the investigation report, as referred to by the AO and CIT(A), did not specifically mention bogus booking of losses. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's claim of not being given adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the additional income offered by the assessee, which was required to be included in the profit and loss statement, must also be added to the book profit for the purpose of Section 115JB. Allowing a person to benefit from their own mistake was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the second revised penalty order, which was cancelled by the CIT(A) on a technical ground (lack of prior JCIT approval), was rectifiable. Therefore, it was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for proper approval and re-passing of the order.

The Tribunal found that the AO had indeed verified the issue of share premium during the assessment proceedings. The assessee had provided explanations and supporting documents regarding the conversion of unsecured loans to share premium and the timing of the entries. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for additional evidence, stating that such evidence is necessary for complete adjudication. The case was remitted back to the AO to decide de-novo after considering the additional evidence.

The Tribunal found an apparent error in the computation sheet regarding income from other sources, which resulted in the incorrect demand. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the tax liability using the correct figures, which should result in a nil demand.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition. The transaction involved a series of complex financial maneuvers suggesting a lack of genuineness in the share capital received by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the ALV should be determined based on the municipal ratable value, as previously decided in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow vacancy allowance.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT could not assume revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 as the issue of 'investment transaction fees' had already been considered and decided by the CIT(A). Furthermore, the original reassessment order itself was found to be unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the payments were pure cost reimbursements and not in the nature of fees for technical services. Therefore, TDS was not required under Section 195.

The Tribunal held that transponder charges paid to non-residents are not taxable as 'royalty' under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). Therefore, the assessee is not required to deduct tax at source on these payments.

The Tribunal held that transponder charges paid to non-residents are not taxable as 'royalty' under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). Therefore, the assessee is not required to deduct tax at source on these payments.

The Tribunal held that transponder charges paid to non-residents are not taxable as 'royalty' under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). Therefore, the assessee is not required to deduct tax at source on these payments.

The Tribunal held that transponder charges paid to non-residents are not taxable as 'royalty' under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). Therefore, the assessee is not required to deduct tax at source on these payments.

The Tribunal held that transponder charges paid to non-residents are not taxable as 'royalty' under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). Therefore, the assessee is not required to deduct tax at source on these payments.

The Tribunal held that transponder charges paid to non-residents are not taxable as 'royalty' under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). Therefore, the assessee is not required to deduct tax at source on these payments.

The Tribunal held that transponder charges paid to non-residents are not taxable as 'royalty' under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). Therefore, the assessee is not required to deduct tax at source on these payments.

The Tribunal held that transponder charges paid to non-residents are not taxable as 'royalty' under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). Therefore, the assessee is not required to deduct tax at source on these payments.

The Tribunal held that transponder charges paid to non-residents are not taxable as 'royalty' under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). Therefore, the assessee is not required to deduct tax at source on these payments.

The Tribunal held that transponder charges paid to non-residents are not taxable as 'royalty' under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). Therefore, the assessee is not required to deduct tax at source on these payments.

The Tribunal held that transponder charges paid to non-residents are not taxable as 'royalty' under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). Therefore, the assessee is not required to deduct tax at source on these payments.

The Tribunal held that transponder charges paid to non-residents are not taxable as 'royalty' under the relevant Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs). Therefore, the assessee is not required to deduct tax at source on these payments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be provided another opportunity to present its case before the lower authorities. The Assessing Officer is directed to reconsider the matter afresh, allowing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.