ITAT Mumbai Judgments — May 2022

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 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.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and received Form-5. Therefore, keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose.

The Tribunal held that trading activities, when defined as import for re-export under SEZ Rules, qualify as 'services' eligible for deduction under Section 10AA. Furthermore, foreign exchange gains derived from export business are also eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, which made such deposits disallowable if not made within the PF Act due date, was prospective. Therefore, for the A.Y. 2019-20, deposits made before the return filing due date were allowable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) overlooked the difference between invoice value and assessable value for customs duty. It held that such a difference alone cannot justify an addition without reconciliation. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on income that is itself based on estimation. Since the sustained addition was the GP element, it was not a valid ground for penalty.

The Tribunal held that retrospective amendments to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act do not affect the interpretation of DTAA provisions. Following its own prior decisions and Delhi High Court rulings, the Tribunal concluded that the payments were not royalty under the relevant DTAAs.

The Tribunal held that retrospective amendments to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act do not affect the interpretation of DTAA provisions. Following its own prior decisions and Delhi High Court rulings, the Tribunal concluded that the payments were not royalty under the relevant DTAAs.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question. Payments made before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) are allowable deductions.

The Tribunal held that retrospective amendments to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act do not affect the interpretation of DTAA provisions. Following its own prior decisions and Delhi High Court rulings, the Tribunal concluded that the payments were not royalty under the relevant DTAAs.

The Tribunal held that if employee contributions to PF and ESI are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), they are allowable as a deduction. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that an assessee is not precluded from changing the benchmarking method if it can demonstrate that another method results in a more appropriate determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP). The Tribunal also allowed grounds related to the adoption of CUP and computation of book profits, while dismissing grounds related to penalty and interest.

The Tribunal held that an assessee is not precluded from changing the benchmarking method if it can demonstrate that another method results in a more appropriate determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP). The Tribunal also allowed grounds related to the adoption of CUP and computation of book profits, while dismissing grounds related to penalty and interest.

The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to PF and ESI are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the Assessment Year 2019-20. Since the payment was made before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable.

The Tribunal directed the inclusion of excess provision written back in the core activity turnover and restored the issue of reimbursement for managed vessels to the AO for fresh verification. The disallowance of administrative expenses was upheld, following a previous ruling.

The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to PF and ESI are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), the deduction is allowable. The amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective.

The Tribunal held that retrospective amendments to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act do not affect the interpretation of DTAA provisions. Following its own prior decisions and Delhi High Court rulings, the Tribunal concluded that the payments were not royalty under the relevant DTAAs.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, which made such delayed payments disallowable, was not retrospective and thus not applicable to the assessment year in question. Therefore, the disallowance was not justified if the payments were made before the due date of filing the return.

The Tribunal held that retrospective amendments to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act do not affect the interpretation of DTAA provisions. Following its own prior decisions and Delhi High Court rulings, the Tribunal concluded that the payments were not royalty under the relevant DTAAs.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide reasons for confirming the validity of the reopening and that a legal ground regarding non-compliance with Section 151 was not adjudicated. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the lease rental income from the industrial park is assessable as business income, following the principle of consistency and previous orders in the assessee's own case. The Revenue's argument about the non-transfer of operation and maintenance was not supported by evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 5% of the labour expenses. It found that the facts and issues were identical to a previous case decided in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified, following jurisdictional High Court decisions and ITAT rulings. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B were considered prospective, not retrospective.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified, following various High Court and ITAT decisions. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered prospective, not retrospective.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made in the processing of the return under section 143(1) was vitiated in law. Following co-ordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance.

The Tribunal found that due to the pandemic situation, the assessee could not receive notices or attend hearings. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was restored back to the First Appellate Authority.

The Tribunal held that telecommunication expenses should not be reduced from export turnover and directed that they be considered in both export and total turnover calculations. Similarly, foreign exchange expenditures were directed to be considered in both export and total turnover for Section 10A deductions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Exemptions)'s order, noting that the assessee failed to produce necessary documents to prove its charitable activities and that its dominant activity was business-oriented and not incidental to its objects.

The Tribunal held that the issue of deduction under Section 80P for cooperative societies dealing with nominal members has been settled by the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. The profits attributable to loans given to non-members cannot be deducted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that incriminating evidence was found during the search action to support the additions made. The assessee failed to provide necessary details to counter the findings regarding bogus capital assets and commission payments.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that incriminating evidence was found during the search action to support the additions made. The assessee failed to provide necessary details to counter the findings regarding bogus capital assets and commission payments.

The Tribunal held that the foreign exchange loss incurred on redemption of interest-bearing bonds, which are chargeable to tax, is a deductible expenditure. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on other grounds, partly allowing the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that rejection rates in the diamond industry are subjective and depend on various factors like diamond grades and physical evaluation. It found it difficult to accept the tax authorities' selective acceptance of in-house rejection rates while rejecting those from job work.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reopening of the assessment was not valid as it was based on information from another department without independent inquiry and without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned parties. The additions were deleted as the revenue failed to prove the purchases were bogus.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reopening of the assessment was not valid as it was based on information from another department without independent inquiry and without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned parties. The additions were deleted as the revenue failed to prove the purchases were bogus.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reopening of the assessment was not valid as it was based on information from another department without independent inquiry and without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned parties. The additions were deleted as the revenue failed to prove the purchases were bogus.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESIC paid after the due date under the respective acts but before the due date for filing the return of income is not justified. The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, are prospective and not retrospective.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified, following various High Court and ITAT decisions. It was decided that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not retrospective.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made in the processing of the return under section 143(1) was vitiated in law. Following co-ordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's PF/ESIC contributions made before the return filing due date is not justified, following jurisdictional High Court decisions. The Tribunal also directed the AO to reconcile and verify the TDS credit claim.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to partly allow the assessee's appeal. The CIT(A) had correctly considered the assessee's explanations regarding cash deposits and loan transactions, and the Revenue failed to provide distinguishing facts.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, it cannot be applied to the Assessment Year 2017-18. The deduction is allowable if the payment is made before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1).

The tribunal allowed both the assessee's applications to withdraw its appeals and the revenue's applications to withdraw its cross-objections. Consequently, all appeals and cross-objections filed by both parties were treated as dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made in the processing of the return under section 143(1) was vitiated in law. Following co-ordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution under Section 251 of the Act. The appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) to decide the issues on their merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution under Section 251 of the Act. The appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) to decide the issues on their merits.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) mechanically applied Section 50C without referring to the valuation officer. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding incorrect stamp duty valuation and directed the CIT(A) to verify the claim.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming a deduction for a bogus donation. The withdrawal of the appeal against the disallowance and the admission by the institution confirmed the fraudulent nature of the donation.