ITAT Mumbai Judgments — June 2022

The Tribunal held that no suit or other legal proceedings can be initiated by or against the corporate debtor once liquidation proceedings have commenced, as per Section 33(5) of the IBC. The IBC has overriding effect over the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that no suit or other legal proceedings can be initiated by or against the corporate debtor once liquidation proceedings have commenced, as per Section 33(5) of the IBC. The IBC has overriding effect over the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that no suit or other legal proceedings can be initiated by or against the corporate debtor once liquidation proceedings have commenced, as per Section 33(5) of the IBC. The IBC has overriding effect over the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that no suit or other legal proceedings can be initiated by or against the corporate debtor once liquidation proceedings have commenced, as per Section 33(5) of the IBC. The IBC has overriding effect over the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that no suit or other legal proceedings can be initiated by or against the corporate debtor once liquidation proceedings have commenced, as per Section 33(5) of the IBC. The IBC has overriding effect over the Income-tax Act.

The tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objections to this request.

The Tribunal noted that the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act granted immunity from penalty. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's request.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on director's remuneration, stating the difference should be added to the director's personal income. For TDS on interest, the matter was restored to the AO to verify if payees offered income and paid tax, allowing the ground partly. The appeal on FD interest was allowed, accepting the assessee's claim of offering it in the subsequent AY based on consistency.

The Tribunal held that no suit or other legal proceedings can be initiated by or against the corporate debtor once liquidation proceedings have commenced, as per Section 33(5) of the IBC. The IBC has overriding effect over the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that for assessments under Section 153C, there must be assessment year-specific incriminating material. Since no such material was found for the years in question, the assessments were deemed to be without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act as the revision was initiated based on a proposal from the Assessing Officer, not on the PCIT's independent examination of records. Furthermore, the issue had already been adjudicated by the CIT(A), making it ineligible for revision.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without sufficient opportunity for the assessee to present their case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making an addition under Section 68 when the source of funds was not doubted and the genuineness of the transaction, identity of creditors, and creditworthiness were not questioned. Any addition for share premium exceeding market value should be considered under Section 56(2), not Section 68.

The Tribunal held that the agreement for Plot-A was a transfer of development rights, not a conveyance, and thus Section 50C was not attracted. For Plot-B, since the Stamp Duty Valuation (SDV) was zero and the sale consideration shown was not less than the SDV, Section 50C was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF & ESI, if remitted before the due date of filing income tax returns under Section 139(1), is deductible. The amendments brought by the Finance Act 2021 are prospective and do not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the loan transaction, including the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 was deleted, and the interest paid was allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted requisite inquiries and the CIT failed to demonstrate how the AO's order was erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had an excess of expenditure over income, negating prejudice to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus under Section 68 by not establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction with the creditor. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was justified.

The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to PF & ESI, if remitted before the due date of filing income tax returns under Section 139(1), is deductible. The amendments brought by the Finance Act 2021 are prospective and do not apply to the assessment years in question.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of commission payment was based on surmises and conjectures without any documentary evidence. The PCIT cannot thrust his opinion on the Assessing Officer without cogent material, and the twin conditions for Section 263 jurisdiction were not met.

The Tribunal held that consultancy services and IT support services are not taxable as FTS or Royalty, following its previous decisions. The issue of reimbursement of expenses was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain an addition of 25% of the bogus purchases, finding no merit in the AO's appeal to restore the 100% disallowance. The Tribunal noted that coordinate benches had upheld additions at a much lower percentage.

The Tribunal held that the payment of ₹3.06 crores was indeed reimbursement of expenses and no tax was required to be withheld. For the remaining ₹17 lacs, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to examine the TDS already deducted and the nature of reimbursement.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) were not justified in sustaining additions for low gross profit rate when the assessee was treated as an accommodation entry provider. It also found that commission income on sales was already accounted for and converting a protective addition to a substantive one without notice was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s direction was correct and not contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals. The issue was about the correct computation of refund, not claiming interest on interest.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s direction was correct and not contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals. The issue was about the correct computation of refund, not claiming interest on interest.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s direction was correct and not contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Gujarat Fluoro Chemicals. The issue was about the correct computation of refund, not claiming interest on interest.

The Tribunal held that the interest income from bank fixed deposits should be treated as business income, following a co-ordinate bench decision. It also held that the disallowance of business expenditures was unjustified, as the company was maintaining its establishment even during periods of inactivity.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to discharge its onus in proving the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of lenders for cash deposits and unsecured loans.

The Tribunal held that the payment of ₹3.06 crores was indeed reimbursement of expenses and no tax was required to be withheld. For the remaining ₹17 lacs, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to examine the TDS already deducted and the nature of reimbursement.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty, following its own prior decision in the assessee's quantum appeal. The Tribunal found no material or evidence to connect the assessee with the bank accounts to justify the inference of income accruing or arising in India.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) were not justified in sustaining additions for low gross profit rate when the assessee was treated as an accommodation entry provider. It also found that commission income on sales was already accounted for and converting a protective addition to a substantive one without notice was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the claim for exemption under Section 54F is an integral part of the computation of capital gains and cannot be excluded in reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the exemption.

The Tribunal held that adjustments under Section 143(1) are restricted to arithmetic errors or apparent incorrect claims. Since the assessee had disclosed the set-off in its return and it was not an apparent incorrect claim, the CPC's disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) were not justified in sustaining additions for low gross profit rate when the assessee was treated as an accommodation entry provider. It also found that commission income on sales was already accounted for and converting a protective addition to a substantive one without notice was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) were not justified in sustaining additions for low gross profit rate when the assessee was treated as an accommodation entry provider. It also found that commission income on sales was already accounted for and converting a protective addition to a substantive one without notice was invalid.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It restricted the disallowance of expenses to 50% of the claimed amount, deleted additions related to unexplained sales, and reversed the addition on account of profit difference, finding no merit in the lower authorities' findings.

The Tribunal found merit in considering the additional evidence filed by the appellant but also acknowledged the need for the Revenue to verify it. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and the assessee had not participated. Therefore, it was not appropriate to decide the matter on merits at that stage. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that no expenditure is allowable for a prohibited business like hawala. It also held that additions for concluded assessment years cannot be made without specific incriminating material for those years.

The Tribunal held that no expenditure is allowable for a prohibited business like hawala. It also held that additions for concluded assessment years cannot be made without specific incriminating material for those years.

The Tribunal held that the facts and circumstances were similar to the preceding assessment year where a coordinate bench had deleted a similar addition. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition.

The ITAT held that an order passed by the CIT(A) on a stay application is not an appealable order before the Tribunal. The Tribunal can only entertain stay applications when a regular appeal for the relevant assessment year is already pending before it.

The Tribunal held that since the income was already offered to tax in earlier years, the irrecoverable portion written off in the books should be allowed as a deduction. The substance of the transaction, rather than its form, should be considered.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. This was done to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case, adhering to principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 143(1) was outside its scope as the amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were not applicable retrospectively to the assessment year in question. The Tribunal also noted that the disclosure in Form 3CD did not constitute a disallowance triggering Section 143(1)(a)(iv).

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and restored the entire disputed issues back to the Assessing Officer for verification and decision on merits. The assessee was granted an opportunity to substantiate its case.

The Tribunal held that since the recipient had disclosed the interest income and paid taxes thereon, and the assessee had filed the requisite audit certificate, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was warranted. The second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) was held to be retrospective.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lender, thus no addition could be made under Section 68. It was also held that since the interest was capitalized and not claimed as a deduction, there was no question of disallowance.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s method of applying the logic from AY 2014-15 to AY 2007-08 and AY 2011-12 to be flawed. The Tribunal emphasized the correct application of peak credit and telescoping principles and the need for proper verification of income and expenses.