ITAT Mumbai Judgments — April 2022

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. For AY 2012-13, the disallowances were repeated in 153A proceedings without incriminating material. For AY 2016-17, the appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect. For AY 2017-18, the Assessing Officer's ground of appeal was factually incorrect regarding the nature of the brought forward loss.

The Tribunal held that the loans and advances were made out of commercial considerations and business expediency for acquiring land for wind farm projects. Therefore, they did not fall under the definition of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e).

The Tribunal held that the interest income was taxable at the rate specified in the India-Japan DTAA, as it was not linked to the assessee's Permanent Establishment in India. The Tribunal followed its own previous order in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to provide the assessee with another opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) was then to decide the appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte dismissal was due to non-service of notices on the assessee at their correct, updated address. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte dismissal was due to non-service of notices on the assessee at their correct, updated address. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that for properties held to be let out but remaining vacant despite efforts, the annual letting value should be nil as per Section 23(1)(c). It also directed re-assessment of expenditure under Section 14A in accordance with law.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of Rs. 1.58 crores paid to creditors as the cost of shares lacked cogency and corroborative material. The payments were made much before the shares were allotted and had no direct nexus with the acquisition cost of the shares.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on delayed payment of TDS is compensatory in nature and not penal. Therefore, it is an allowable deduction.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic, non-speaking, and lacking application of mind. It held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal based on a misunderstanding and in making enhancements without proper procedure.

The Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute the disallowance under Section 14A by considering only investments yielding exempt income. For Education Cess, the Tribunal, following the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. K. Srinivasan, held it to be part of income-tax and thus not allowable as a deduction.

The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO. The CIT(A) had overlooked the lack of creditworthiness of the loan providers and the suspicious nature of the transactions, which involved circuitous routing of money.

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to the validity of notices under Section 153C and 153D, as they were either not pressed or found to be frivolous. The additions of agricultural income and unexplained cash/jewellery were upheld due to the assessee's failure to provide satisfactory evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. A rider was added allowing restoration if the scheme resolution fails.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's duty includes ensuring proper application of law, not just verifying claimed expenses. Capitalizing non-allowable expenditure, even if not claimed in the current year, indicates an incorrect application of law that can be rectified under Section 263.

The assessee's authorized representative informed the tribunal that the assessee wished to withdraw its appeals. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the expenses claimed by the assessee were not incurred wholly and exclusively for earning the dividend and interest income, and thus not allowable under Section 57(iii). The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had subsequently stopped claiming such expenses and settled disputes in later years.

The Tribunal held that the AO's ground regarding the nature of the transfer being ownership rights was not sustainable as a clause in the deed allowed termination for non-payment of rent. The Tribunal also noted that the DVO's valuation of tenancy rights was only marginally different from the assessee's declared value, making it acceptable.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals and cross-objections. This was because the assessee company was under liquidation, and the appeals were not filed by the authorized Resolution Professional. The Tribunal granted liberty to refile the appeals in the proper format.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals and cross-objections. This was because the assessee company was under liquidation, and the appeals were not filed by the authorized Resolution Professional. The Tribunal granted liberty to refile the appeals in the proper format.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals and cross-objections. This was because the assessee company was under liquidation, and the appeals were not filed by the authorized Resolution Professional. The Tribunal granted liberty to refile the appeals in the proper format.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated in violation of Section 147 of the Act as there was no tangible material and it was based on a change of opinion triggered by an audit objection. The primary facts were already disclosed by the assessee.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of Form 26A certificates from the NBFCs. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the NBFCs had accounted for the interest income in their returns and paid tax thereon.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals and cross-objections. This was because the assessee company was under liquidation, and the appeals were not filed by the authorized Resolution Professional. The Tribunal granted liberty to refile the appeals in the proper format.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals and cross-objections. This was because the assessee company was under liquidation, and the appeals were not filed by the authorized Resolution Professional. The Tribunal granted liberty to refile the appeals in the proper format.

The Tribunal held that the AO had recorded satisfaction regarding the assessee's compliance in furnishing details, and the final assessment order was passed under section 143(3), not section 144. The subsequent rectification of defaults warranted the cancellation of the penalty.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals and cross-objections. This was because the assessee company was under liquidation, and the appeals were not filed by the authorized Resolution Professional. The Tribunal granted liberty to refile the appeals in the proper format.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals and cross-objections. This was because the assessee company was under liquidation, and the appeals were not filed by the authorized Resolution Professional. The Tribunal granted liberty to refile the appeals in the proper format.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals and cross-objections. This was because the assessee company was under liquidation, and the appeals were not filed by the authorized Resolution Professional. The Tribunal granted liberty to refile the appeals in the proper format.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and not sustainable in law, as the IT Act does not grant power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals and cross-objections. This was because the assessee company was under liquidation, and the appeals were not filed by the authorized Resolution Professional. The Tribunal granted liberty to refile the appeals in the proper format.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, which allows for the computation of fee under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements, is prospective in nature. Therefore, fees levied for periods prior to June 1, 2015, are not sustainable.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals and cross-objections. This was because the assessee company was under liquidation, and the appeals were not filed by the authorized Resolution Professional. The Tribunal granted liberty to refile the appeals in the proper format.

The Tribunal held that the entire DMA commission incurred and paid by the assessee is allowable as a deduction in the year it is incurred, following previous decisions. Regarding delinquency support, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that it is taxable when the debt is written off.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals and cross-objections. This was because the assessee company was under liquidation, and the appeals were not filed by the authorized Resolution Professional. The Tribunal granted liberty to refile the appeals in the proper format.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals and cross-objections. This was because the assessee company was under liquidation, and the appeals were not filed by the authorized Resolution Professional. The Tribunal granted liberty to refile the appeals in the proper format.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals and cross-objections. This was because the assessee company was under liquidation, and the appeals were not filed by the authorized Resolution Professional. The Tribunal granted liberty to refile the appeals in the proper format.

The Tribunal held that TNMM was the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) as the assessee merely provided support services and the risk was borne by the overseas branches. It also noted that similar adjustments were deleted in prior cases and that the AO had accepted the transaction in earlier years.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals and cross-objections. This was because the assessee company was under liquidation, and the appeals were not filed by the authorized Resolution Professional. The Tribunal granted liberty to refile the appeals in the proper format.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning the deletion of on-money additions and LTCG exemption, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. Similarly, the Assessee's grounds of appeal challenging confirmed disallowances were also dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that it was undisputed that Form No. 5, prescribed under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, had been issued by the designated authority on 14.02.2022, with reference to the present appeal. The Tribunal referred to Section 4(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, which states that upon the filing of the declaration, any appeal pending before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the disputed income or tax arrear shall be deemed to have been withdrawn from the date on which the certificate under sub-section (1) of Section 5 is issued. The Tribunal also referred to Rule 4 of the Vivad Se Vishwas Rules, 2020, and Section 5(1) and 5(2) of the Act, which stipulate that the certificate has to be issued in Form No. 5. Since the assessee had paid the disputed tax and no tax arrears were pending as per the certificate in Form No. 5, the Tribunal held that the present appeal is deemed to be withdrawn in terms of Section 4(2) of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as deemed to be withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of the grounds of appeal as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural basis.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) took a hyper-technical view by dismissing the appeal solely on the clerical error of the assessment year. Substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on borrowed capital used for stock-in-trade is deductible under Section 36(1)(iii), even if capitalized in WIP. The proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) does not apply as the units are stock-in-trade, not capital assets. Double deduction is prevented by not allowing the capitalized interest again when WIP is debited to P&L.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on borrowed capital used for stock-in-trade is deductible under Section 36(1)(iii), even if capitalized in WIP. The proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) does not apply as the units are stock-in-trade, not capital assets. Double deduction is prevented by not allowing the capitalized interest again when WIP is debited to P&L.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the disputed addition was below the threshold specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO under Section 68. The assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the entities from which funds were received, and the source of investments remained unexplained.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that interest paid on borrowed capital used for stock-in-trade is deductible under Section 36(1)(iii), even if capitalized in WIP. The proviso to Section 36(1)(iii) does not apply as the units are stock-in-trade, not capital assets. Double deduction is prevented by not allowing the capitalized interest again when WIP is debited to P&L.