ITAT Mumbai Judgments — May 2022

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer correctly added only the bogus LTCG, as the purchase price was paid from accounted income and there was no evidence of commission expenses. Therefore, the PCIT wrongly exercised revision jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer correctly added only the bogus LTCG, as the purchase price was paid from accounted income and there was no evidence of commission expenses. Therefore, the PCIT wrongly exercised revision jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have made extra efforts to adjudicate the issue on merits instead of merely reiterating the AO's conclusions. Therefore, the appeal was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's turnover was less than Rs. 40 lacs and profit was offered under Section 44AD, and the source of investment and corresponding sales were not doubted, the disallowance of purchases was unjustified. The addition was ordered to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the lump-sum payment received by the assessee should be treated as salary paid in advance, similar to salary in lieu of notice, and not as compensation for loss of employment. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 89(1).

The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer's order was passed beyond the statutory time limit of 60 days prior to the expiry of the assessment period. Consequently, the TP order and the subsequent assessment order were quashed as illegal and void.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not conceal or furnish inaccurate particulars of income as all facts were disclosed and the rental value was fixed as per the agreement. The penalty was deleted as it was not a fit case for levy.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to furnish necessary details and evidence regarding the two investors. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs and the related interest disallowance were unsustainable as the loan was taken through banking channels and the lender's bank statement showed sufficient funds. However, the disallowance of Rs. 6,50,155 on account of interest paid in excess of 15% was upheld due to lack of cogent explanation for the variation.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to adopt the 'other method' as the most appropriate method for benchmarking. It also accepted the additional evidence of third-party quotations as supporting the arm's length nature of the transaction.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication to ensure principles of natural justice are followed.

The Tribunal held that any adjustment under section 143(1) that increases tax liability requires prior intimation to the assessee as per the proviso to section 143(1)(a). The action taken unilaterally without notice violates principles of natural justice and the mandate of the Act.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer, pursuant to the CIT's directions, passed fresh orders accepting the assessee's contentions without making further additions. Consequently, the appeals challenging the section 263 orders were rendered academic.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer, pursuant to the CIT's directions, passed fresh orders accepting the assessee's contentions without making further additions. Consequently, the appeals challenging the section 263 orders were rendered academic.

The Tribunal held that the issue of deductions under Sections 80IC and 80IB was covered by a previous decision in favour of the assessee, based on the principle of consistency. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, as the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the year.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of delayed remittance of employee's contribution to PF/ESIC, paid before the due date of filing the return of income, is not justified. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Act is prospective, applicable from AY 2021-22.

The Tribunal held that the books of accounts should be the primary basis for determining revenue. It found that the assessee's explanation of excess billing reversed in the books required verification by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment for AY 2006-07 was unabated and concluded before the search, no addition could be made under Section 153A without incriminating material found during the search. The addition was based on pre-existing information and not on any new findings from the search.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions related to unsecured loans, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders. The Tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit on 'on-money' receipts.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions related to unsecured loans, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders. The Tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit on 'on-money' receipts.

The Tribunal held that the orders passed by the CPC under sections 143(1) and 154 were unsustainable due to a violation of the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity of hearing was provided to the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions related to unsecured loans, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders. The Tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit on 'on-money' receipts.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions related to unsecured loans, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders. The Tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit on 'on-money' receipts.

The Tribunal held that any adjustment under section 143(1) that increases tax liability requires prior intimation to the assessee as per the proviso to section 143(1)(a). The action taken unilaterally without notice violates principles of natural justice and the mandate of the Act.

The Tribunal decided that the issue of interest deduction for property renovation needs to be re-adjudicated by the Assessing Officer, allowing the assessee to furnish evidence. The addition of cash deposits as unexplained income was not explicitly overturned or upheld in the provided text, but the overall appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's directions regarding limitation periods during the pandemic and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal allowed the deduction of extra bonus, professional charges, and transport charges, holding that their liabilities crystallized in the assessment year 2013-14. The commission on sale was allowed for statistical purposes after verification.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the CIT(A) to decide the appeal denovo after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal. The Department had no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.

The tribunal held that the appeal filed by the erstwhile Director was not maintainable as the NCLT order had been passed and the Director had become functus officio. The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is obligated to decide on merits. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

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

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

The Tribunal held that as per Section 14 of the IBC 2016, no proceedings can be continued against a corporate debtor during the insolvency process. Therefore, the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue could not be proceeded with.

The Tribunal held that as per Section 14 of the IBC 2016, no proceedings can be continued against a corporate debtor during the insolvency process. Therefore, the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue could not be proceeded with.

The Tribunal held that as per Section 14 of the IBC 2016, no proceedings can be continued against a corporate debtor during the insolvency process. Therefore, the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue could not be proceeded with.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal. It found that the CIT's assumptions regarding transfer pricing adjustments and the treatment of 10A unit losses for book profit computation were incorrect. However, provisions for deferred tax liability and other provisions were held to be add-backs for book profit computation due to retrospective amendments.

The Tribunal held that the employee contributions towards Provident Fund and ESI, deposited before the filing of the return of income, are eligible for deduction. The disallowance made by the authorities below was set aside.

The Tribunal followed the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and its own coordinate benches, holding that transponder charges paid to non-residents are not taxable as royalty in India. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on these payments.

The Tribunal followed the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and its own coordinate benches, holding that transponder charges paid to non-residents are not taxable as royalty in India. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on these payments.

The Tribunal followed the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and its own coordinate benches, holding that transponder charges paid to non-residents are not taxable as royalty in India. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on these payments.

The Tribunal held that as per Section 14 of the IBC 2016, no proceedings can be continued against a corporate debtor during the insolvency process. Therefore, the appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue could not be proceeded with.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income, citing a Delhi High Court decision. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be directly added for book profit computation under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal held that the Income Tax Act does not recognize the concept of deferred revenue expenditure unless specifically provided. It also noted that the nature of the expenses was not examined by the tax authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in assuming the concept of beneficial ownership is relevant to Article 13 of the treaty without proper justification. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to first determine if beneficial ownership is an implicit requirement of Article 13 and, if so, its connotations.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in assuming the concept of beneficial ownership is relevant to Article 13 of the treaty without proper justification. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to first determine if beneficial ownership is an implicit requirement of Article 13 and, if so, its connotations.

The Tribunal followed the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and its own coordinate benches, holding that transponder charges paid to non-residents are not taxable as royalty in India. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on these payments.

The Tribunal followed the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and its own coordinate benches, holding that transponder charges paid to non-residents are not taxable as royalty in India. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on these payments.

The Tribunal held that appeals against penalty orders under section 270A passed by the Assessing Officer are appealable before the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246A(1)(q). The appeal filed before the ITAT was therefore not maintainable.

The Tribunal followed the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and its own coordinate benches, holding that transponder charges paid to non-residents are not taxable as royalty in India. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source on these payments.

The Tribunal restored both issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. The AO is directed to consider the assessee's evidence for reconciliation of commission income and verify if IT refund interest was offered in the subsequent year.