ITAT Mumbai Judgments — May 2022

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable, following the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court. However, late fees for periods after June 1, 2015, are sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable, following the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court. However, late fees for periods after June 1, 2015, are sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable, following the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court. However, late fees for periods after June 1, 2015, are sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable, following the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court. However, late fees for periods after June 1, 2015, are sustainable.

The tribunal held that disallowances made under section 143(1) based on tax audit report entries, when payments were made before the due date of filing the income tax return, are not sustainable. The tribunal also allowed a separate ground regarding employer's contribution to ESIC and PF based on a Supreme Court decision.

The Tribunal allowed the ground related to PF/ESIC contributions by following a coordinate bench decision. The issue of brought forward losses was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, with directions to allow carry forward if the earlier returns were filed within the prescribed time.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable, following the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court. However, late fees for periods after June 1, 2015, are sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's PF/ESI contributions was incorrect as the amendments to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B were not retrospective for the relevant assessment year. The issue regarding audit fees was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals filed by the assessee as withdrawn. This decision was made based on a statement made by the assessee's authorized representative at the bar.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable, following the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court. However, late fees for periods after June 1, 2015, are sustainable.

The tribunal allowed the appeal, following a coordinate bench's decision. It held that disallowances under section 143(1) are limited and that payments made before the income tax return filing due date are deductible, even if delayed under the specific statute.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, following a coordinate bench decision. It held that disallowances under section 143(1) are limited and that payments made before the return filing due date are deductible, even if delayed under the respective statute.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals filed by the assessee as withdrawn. This decision was made based on a statement made by the assessee's authorized representative at the bar.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable, following the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court. However, late fees for periods after June 1, 2015, are sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Explanation to Section 43B(b) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year 2019-20. Since the assessee deposited the PF contribution before the due date of filing the return of income, the disallowance was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantial compliance and that practical difficulties in furnishing segmental details in the diamond industry constituted a reasonable cause for non-compliance. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271G was not justifiable.

The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee were in the nature of compensation for alternative accommodation and not rent, as there was no landlord-tenant relationship. Therefore, TDS under Section 194-I was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee were in the nature of compensation for alternative accommodation and not rent, as there was no landlord-tenant relationship. Therefore, TDS under Section 194-I was not applicable.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the loan transactions. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable, following the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court. However, late fees for periods after June 1, 2015, are sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act was defective as it did not specify the limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) for which the penalty was being levied. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under section 143(1) for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESIC is not sustainable if the payment is made before the due date of filing the income tax return. The tax auditor's report does not bind the assessee, and the jurisdictional High Court's decisions on this matter are binding.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable, following the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court. However, late fees for periods after June 1, 2015, are sustainable.

The Tribunal held that if the primary addition is deleted, there is no basis for levying a penalty for concealment. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty was upheld.

The Tribunal held that for payments to be considered 'fees for technical services' under Article 13 of the India-UK DTAA, the services must 'make available' technical knowledge, experience, or skill to the recipient, enabling them to apply it independently. Mere rendering of technical services is insufficient if the recipient cannot use the knowledge in the future without recourse to the provider.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable, following the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court. However, late fees for periods after June 1, 2015, are sustainable.

The Tribunal held that disallowances under section 143(1) are limited to claims that are conclusively inadmissible. It followed a coordinate bench decision, stating that payments of employee's PF contribution made before the due date of filing the income tax return are deductible, even if made after the statutory due date.

The Tribunal held that once a dispute is settled under the DTVSV scheme, no penalty or interest can be levied on the disputed claim. Therefore, the revenue's appeal regarding the penalty reduction became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under section 143(1) was not sustainable. It followed a coordinate bench decision which allowed deduction for payments made before the filing of the income tax return, even if delayed under the specific statute.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had provided only one opportunity for hearing and the assessee could not appear due to portal issues. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal directed the inclusion of R. Systems International Ltd., CG-VAK Software and Exports Pvt. Ltd., and Jindal Intellicom Pvt. Ltd., and the exclusion of E-Clerx Services Ltd. from the list of comparables. This decision was based on functional comparability and previous tribunal rulings.

The Tribunal found that one of the main grounds in the quantum proceedings regarding notional interest income on interest-free loans was remanded back to the AO for verification. Considering this, the penalty proceedings were also remanded back to the AO for denovo adjudication.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of long-term capital gains and commission as unexplained cash credit, finding the transactions to be a colourable device to evade tax. The Tribunal also confirmed the addition of the advance received as deemed dividend, as the conditions under Section 2(22)(e) were met.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question. Since the payment was made before the due date of filing the return of income, the deduction is allowable.

The Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute disallowance under Section 14A based on investments yielding exempt income. It also held that carbon credit sales are capital receipts, following High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of delayed payment of employee's contribution to PF/ESI was not justified. Following previous judgments, the Tribunal ruled that payments made before the due date for filing the return of income are eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular regarding low tax effect for not prosecuting appeals applies to quantum proceedings, not penalty proceedings. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of delayed payment of employee's contribution to PF/ESI was not justified. Following previous judgments, the Tribunal ruled that payments made before the due date for filing the return of income are eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular regarding low tax effect for not prosecuting appeals applies to quantum proceedings, not penalty proceedings. Therefore, the Revenue's appeals were treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute disallowance under Section 14A based on investments yielding exempt income. It also held that carbon credit sales are capital receipts, following High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that similar issues in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years were decided in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal found no evidence of trade, commerce, or business activities by the assessee and noted that the principle of mutuality was not violated.

The Tribunal directed the AO to re-compute disallowance under Section 14A based on investments yielding exempt income. It also held that carbon credit sales are capital receipts, following High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that similar issues in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years were decided in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal found no evidence of trade, commerce, or business activities by the assessee and noted that the principle of mutuality was not violated.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified, following previous decisions that payments made before the due date of filing the return of income are eligible for deduction. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective.

The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions for other assessment years, held that the addition for non-genuine purchases should be restricted to 8% of the purchases. This was based on the principle of consistency and the fact that the previous appeals also dealt with similar issues of accommodation entries.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and effective from assessment year 2021-22. Therefore, contributions paid before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable as a deduction.