ITAT Mumbai Judgments — June 2022

The ITAT set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)'s file. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and submit supporting documents.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the prescribed procedure under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by not providing a proper hearing and not passing a speaking order. The delay in filing one appeal was condoned due to a reasonable cause.

The Tribunal held that the penalties were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' commenced with the Assessing Officer's discussion in the assessment order and subsequent referral. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues involving journal entries were held to be outside the scope of penal provisions by higher courts.

The Tribunal held that adjustments under section 143(1) based on tax audit report inputs are not justified when payments are made before the due date of filing the return, as per High Court precedents. The disallowances made by the CPC were directed to be deleted.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the prescribed procedure under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by not providing a proper hearing and not passing a speaking order. The delay in filing one appeal was condoned due to a reasonable cause.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, finding that it went to the root of the matter. The Tribunal restored these evidences and the issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) order was passed without providing adequate opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantially complied with the conditions for Section 80IB(10) deduction, considering the legislative intent and judicial precedents. Regarding bogus purchases, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the profit element, not the entire amount.

The Tribunal, following the Bombay High Court's decision, directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to the extent of the gross profit element embedded in the alleged bogus purchases, matching the rate of genuine purchases. The issue was remitted to the AO for determination.

The Tribunal held that the denial of a personal hearing, especially when requested, violated principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Faceless Appeals Rules. The new rules mandate granting personal hearings on demand.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to provide a speaking order addressing the assessee's plea regarding the scope of the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 143(1) is not permissible when the payment is made before the due date of filing the income tax return, even if it's after the statutory due date under the PF/ESI Act. The Tribunal followed its previous decision in a similar case.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the prescribed procedure under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act by not providing a proper hearing and not passing a speaking order. The delay in filing one appeal was condoned due to a reasonable cause.

The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind to the issues, and the view taken was a possible one supported by judicial precedents. Therefore, the CIT's revision order, based on a different view, was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalties were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' commenced with the Assessing Officer's discussion in the assessment order and subsequent referral. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues involving journal entries were held to be outside the scope of penal provisions by higher courts.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate that the payment was for an offense or a prohibited act, and that the construction conformed to the subsequently obtained approval. Relying on previous Tribunal decisions in similar cases, the payment was allowed as a business expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC erred in not deciding the request for a video conference hearing and that the subsequent Faceless Appeals Scheme 2021, which makes personal hearings on-demand, should be applied retrospectively. The matter was remitted back to the NFAC.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the revised appeal papers filed by the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantially complied with the conditions for Section 80IB(10) deduction, considering the legislative intent and judicial precedents. Regarding bogus purchases, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the profit element, not the entire amount.

The Tribunal held that a defective penalty notice, which fails to strike off inapplicable parts, vitiates the penalty proceedings. Following the Bombay High Court's judgment, the penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to charge commission income at 2% on gross bank deposits and disallowed any expenditure deduction. The assessee failed to provide evidence for transfer entries or the nature of expenses incurred.

The Tribunal held that adjustments under section 143(1) based on tax audit report inputs are not justified when payments are made before the due date of filing the return, as per High Court precedents. The disallowances made by the CPC were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that adjustments under section 143(1) based on tax audit report inputs are not justified when payments are made before the due date of filing the return, as per High Court precedents. The disallowances made by the CPC were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that adjustments under section 143(1) based on tax audit report inputs are not justified when payments are made before the due date of filing the return, as per High Court precedents. The disallowances made by the CPC were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence, including PANs, addresses, IT returns, bank statements, share application forms, board resolutions, financial statements, and details of investible funds for the share applicants. The AO did not point out any defects in these documents and did not bring any contrary material on record to disprove the transactions.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the first appellate authority. The Tribunal noted a lack of clear findings on the foundational issue of whether transactions were on a principal-to-principal basis.

The Tribunal held that adjustments under section 143(1) based on tax audit report inputs are not justified when payments are made before the due date of filing the return, as per High Court precedents. The disallowances made by the CPC were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the first appellate authority. The Tribunal noted a lack of clear findings on the foundational issue of whether transactions were on a principal-to-principal basis.

The Tribunal held that adjustments under section 143(1) based on tax audit report inputs are not justified when payments are made before the due date of filing the return, as per High Court precedents. The disallowances made by the CPC were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the denial of a personal hearing through video conferencing violated principles of natural justice and the Faceless Appeals Rules. The impugned order was vacated.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the first appellate authority. The Tribunal noted a lack of clear findings on the foundational issue of whether transactions were on a principal-to-principal basis.

The Tribunal held that adjustments under section 143(1) based on tax audit report inputs are not justified when payments are made before the due date of filing the return, as per High Court precedents. The disallowances made by the CPC were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalties were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' commenced with the Assessing Officer's discussion in the assessment order and subsequent referral. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues involving journal entries were held to be outside the scope of penal provisions by higher courts.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under section 143(1) based on the tax audit report regarding late deposit of PF/ESI contributions was vitiated in law. The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision which held that payments made before the due date of filing the income tax return are deductible.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the first appellate authority. The Tribunal noted a lack of clear findings on the foundational issue of whether transactions were on a principal-to-principal basis.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the first appellate authority. The Tribunal noted a lack of clear findings on the foundational issue of whether transactions were on a principal-to-principal basis.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made proper enquiries and taken a plausible view by disallowing interest attributable to funds used for house property purchase. Therefore, the revision order passed by the PCIT was not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that the National Faceless Assessment Centre proceeded to dismiss the appeal despite being informed of the withdrawal from the Vivas Se Vishwas Scheme. This was considered an inadvertent mistake.

The Tribunal held that the penalties were barred by limitation as the 'action for imposition of penalty' commenced with the Assessing Officer's discussion in the assessment order and subsequent referral. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues involving journal entries were held to be outside the scope of penal provisions by higher courts.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the first appellate authority. The Tribunal noted a lack of clear findings on the foundational issue of whether transactions were on a principal-to-principal basis.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to examine the new evidence and decide the matter afresh.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the first appellate authority. The Tribunal noted a lack of clear findings on the foundational issue of whether transactions were on a principal-to-principal basis.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of gratuity and leave encashment to the Assessing Officer for verification of actual payments. The disallowance for ESI and PF contributions was deleted, holding that such adjustments fell outside the scope of Section 143(1) given the jurisdictional High Court's decisions.

The Tribunal held that since the payments were made before the due date of filing the return, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was incorrect. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Ghatge Patil Transporters Ltd.

The Tribunal restored the issue of notional interest on advances to the AO/TPO for fresh adjudication, considering the loans were given in earlier years and for business purposes. Regarding foreign exchange gains, the Tribunal also restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, noting the loans were for capital assets and the assessee's core business is shipping, not money lending.

The Tribunal held that the NFAC erred in not deciding the request for a video conference hearing and that the subsequent Faceless Appeals Scheme 2021, which makes personal hearings on-demand, should be applied retrospectively. The matter was remitted back to the NFAC.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the first appellate authority. The Tribunal noted a lack of clear findings on the foundational issue of whether transactions were on a principal-to-principal basis.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessment order, based on a quashed revision order, lacked legal foundation. The pendency of a further appeal to the High Court did not change this position.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made under Section 143(1) was vitiated in law. Payments made after the statutory due date but before the filing of the income tax return are deductible.