ITAT Mumbai Judgments — February 2022

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 confirmed the orders of the lower authorities, holding that the assessee was correctly treated as a resident of India and that the addition of US $5,00,000/- as unexplained income was justified based on the evidence.

The Tribunal held that the payment to financial institutions was a diversion of income by overriding title due to a pre-existing equitable mortgage. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to pay tax on the amount that never truly reached them as their income.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication, considering the additional evidence of reversal of provision and utilization for other expenses. The Assessing Officer was directed to ensure no double taxation occurs.

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 receipts from training services are not taxable as FTS under the Act or the India-Netherlands tax treaty, relying on its own previous decisions. Similarly, receipts for computer reservation systems were also held not to be taxable as royalty.

The Tribunal held that Section 35DDA of the Income Tax Act clearly mandates that only one-fifth of the expenditure incurred under a voluntary retirement scheme is deductible in the current year, with the balance to be deducted in equal installments over the next four years. The CIT(A)'s order confirming the disallowance was upheld.

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 issue of management fees was decided in favour of the assessee in a previous year, and the disallowance by the AO/DRP was incorrect. Regarding corporate social initiatives, the Tribunal noted a favorable remand report from the AO and directed the allowance of the expenditure.

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 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 penalty notice was invalid because it did not specify the exact charge for which penalty proceedings were initiated, demonstrating a lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The failure to strike off the irrelevant clause in the notice also rendered it unsustainable.

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 considered the assessee's application and allowed the appeals to be dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

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 upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases should be added. The revenue failed to provide new evidence to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had indeed invested in one residential property, despite having two flat numbers. The Tribunal noted that beneficial provisions like Section 54F are to be construed liberally and the revenue failed to provide contrary evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, considering it a reasonable estimation of the profit element. The revenue's appeal was dismissed as they could not provide new evidence to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings.

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 only the profit attributable to unrecorded sales should be taxed, not the entire sales consideration. The assessee's declared net profit on these sales was considered reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were bad in law and passed without jurisdiction as the Additional Commissioner had not been duly authorized under Section 120(4)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the impugned assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that bottling of LPG in cylinders amounts to manufacturing or production, making the assessee eligible for deduction under section 32AC. It also held that the dividend income, already taxed under section 115O, should not be taxed again, especially given the consistent treatment in prior years.

The Tribunal held that bottling of LPG in cylinders amounts to manufacturing or production, making the assessee eligible for deduction under section 32AC. It also held that the dividend income, already taxed under section 115O, should not be taxed again, especially given the consistent treatment in prior years.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were bad in law and passed without jurisdiction as the Additional Commissioner had not been duly authorized under Section 120(4)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the impugned assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that ESOP expenses are employee costs deductible during the vesting period, following the Special Bench decision in Biocon Ltd. This decision was also approved by the Karnataka High Court.

The Tribunal held that only the profit attributable to unrecorded sales should be taxed, not the entire sales consideration. The assessee's declared net profit on these sales was considered reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were bad in law and passed without jurisdiction as the Additional Commissioner had not been duly authorized under Section 120(4)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the impugned assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that only the profit attributable to unrecorded sales should be taxed, not the entire sales consideration. The assessee's declared net profit on these sales was considered reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were bad in law and passed without jurisdiction as the Additional Commissioner had not been duly authorized under Section 120(4)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the impugned assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of ₹78,600,000 as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, as the assessee failed to discharge its onus. It also upheld the denial of set-off of brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation against this addition.

The Tribunal held that capital gains are chargeable only in the hands of the person who transfers their capital asset. Since the society did not own the flats and had not transferred any property, the capital gain was not taxable in its hands.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of bogus purchases had been adjudicated in a related revenue appeal. Following that decision, the addition for bogus purchases was restricted to the extent of bringing the gross profit rate on such purchases to the same rate as other genuine purchases.

The Tribunal set aside the issue of buyback of shares to the Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arm's-length price with specific directions. It also set aside issues related to education cess and dividend distribution tax to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were bad in law and passed without jurisdiction as the Additional Commissioner had not been duly authorized under Section 120(4)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the impugned assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly decided the matter in favour of the assessee, following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case. The Tribunal found the Revenue's reliance on case laws to be distinguishable from the present facts.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable because the Form No. 36 was not signed by the authorized person (the IRP) as per the NCLT order. However, liberty was granted to file a revised form.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly decided the matter in favour of the assessee, following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case. The Tribunal found the Revenue's reliance on case laws to be distinguishable from the present facts.

The Tribunal observed that the appeals should have been filed by the Official Liquidator as the company's affairs vested with them. Since the appeals were filed by the erstwhile Managing Director, they were deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not apply the higher profit percentage to opening balances of earlier years without reopening those assessments. The offer made during search was based on projected figures, not actuals, and the assessee had offered 30% on actual receipts for the current year.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were bad in law and passed without jurisdiction as the Additional Commissioner had not been duly authorized under Section 120(4)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the impugned assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) took a pedantic view in dismissing the appeal due to a minor delay. Since the substantive issue for AY 2013-14 was settled under VSVS, the protective addition for AY 2014-15 should be deleted.

The Tribunal found the assessee's plea for an opportunity to explain the difference between cash and bank statements reasonable and decided to remit the issue to the AO. Similarly, the issue of opening cash balance was also remitted for fresh examination by the AO.

The Tribunal, in light of a previous decision in the assessee's own case and with the consent of both parties, restored the entire appeal to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. The AO is to consider additional evidence and provide a fair hearing.

The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had properly dealt with the assessee's contention that the expense was for business purposes. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.