ITAT Mumbai Judgments — June 2022

The Tribunal held that the reassessment was validly initiated. It also decided that only the profit element embedded in the disputed purchases should be added, reducing the addition from 12.5% to 5% of the purchase value.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the circumstances beyond the assessee's control. The Tribunal also decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance, decided to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to present evidence, citing principles of natural justice. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the issues were restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee could claim eligible deductions in reassessment proceedings, even if not claimed in the original return. The PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable as the Assessing Officer had made due enquiries and the order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal decided to remand the appeal back to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh on merits.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium imposed under Section 14 of the IBC, no proceedings can be continued against the corporate debtor, including the present appeals. The appeals were therefore dismissed in limini.

The Tribunal acknowledged the unorganized nature of the business and the difficulties in producing all parties. They decided to restrict the addition to 30% of the amount sustained by the CIT(A) to meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal held that the software was embedded in the hardware, could not be used independently, and formed an integral part of the equipment. Therefore, the payment for the software was not royalty.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 4 crore for music rights was not tenable as the agreement was registered, the full consideration was offered to tax, and the AO relied on a presumptuous statement without documentary support. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings on the absence of incriminating material.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to provide crucial seized documents and that the primary evidence indicated the loan was received by certain firms, not the assessee directly, and the witness later retracted his statement.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment proceedings. It found that the reassessment was initiated beyond the permissible time limits, and the amendment to Section 149(1)(c) by the Finance Act, 2012, was not applicable retrospectively in this case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to provide crucial seized documents and that the primary evidence indicated the loan was received by certain firms, not the assessee directly, and the witness later retracted his statement.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect was indeed below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 50 lacs for filing appeals before the ITAT. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that Section 69 is not applicable as the investment in diamonds was recorded in the books of accounts and reflected in the balance sheet. Consequently, the estimated commission expense also does not survive.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the AO's reasoning for disallowing the loss was flawed. The AO failed to provide specific details of the manipulated transactions and how the loss was shifted out.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on ad-hoc or estimated disallowances of purchases, especially when sales are accepted. The Tribunal also noted that the addition was based on information from an outside agency.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 4 crore for music rights was not tenable as the agreement was registered, the full consideration was offered to tax, and the AO relied on a presumptuous statement without documentary support. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings on the absence of incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 4 crore for music rights was not tenable as the agreement was registered, the full consideration was offered to tax, and the AO relied on a presumptuous statement without documentary support. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings on the absence of incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 4 crore for music rights was not tenable as the agreement was registered, the full consideration was offered to tax, and the AO relied on a presumptuous statement without documentary support. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings on the absence of incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 4 crore for music rights was not tenable as the agreement was registered, the full consideration was offered to tax, and the AO relied on a presumptuous statement without documentary support. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings on the absence of incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that the transactions lacked genuineness as they were part of a scheme orchestrated by Dunlop and Falcon Tyres to violate SEBI regulations regarding minimum public shareholding. The assessee was used as a conduit company, and the Enforcement Directorate also found money-laundering traces.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 4 crore for music rights was not tenable as the agreement was registered, the full consideration was offered to tax, and the AO relied on a presumptuous statement without documentary support. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings on the absence of incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 4 crore for music rights was not tenable as the agreement was registered, the full consideration was offered to tax, and the AO relied on a presumptuous statement without documentary support. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings on the absence of incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 4 crore for music rights was not tenable as the agreement was registered, the full consideration was offered to tax, and the AO relied on a presumptuous statement without documentary support. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings on the absence of incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 4 crore for music rights was not tenable as the agreement was registered, the full consideration was offered to tax, and the AO relied on a presumptuous statement without documentary support. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings on the absence of incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 4 crore for music rights was not tenable as the agreement was registered, the full consideration was offered to tax, and the AO relied on a presumptuous statement without documentary support. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings on the absence of incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with the specific directions of a coordinate bench to decide the appeals on merits after granting an opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A)'s order questioning the Tribunal's authority was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with the specific directions of a coordinate bench to decide the appeals on merits after granting an opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A)'s order questioning the Tribunal's authority was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was in contravention of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which prohibits the institution of suits or continuation of proceedings against a corporate debtor during a moratorium period. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with the specific directions of a coordinate bench to decide the appeals on merits after granting an opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A)'s order questioning the Tribunal's authority was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the resolution professional had not properly prosecuted the appeals by amending the necessary forms. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the resolution professional had not properly prosecuted the appeals by amending the necessary forms. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the offshore distribution commission income was business income and not taxable in India as the assessee did not have a permanent establishment. For the second assessment year, a related issue regarding interest income was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with the specific directions of a coordinate bench to decide the appeals on merits after granting an opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A)'s order questioning the Tribunal's authority was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was below the revised monetary limit specified by CBDT circulars. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the resolution professional had not properly prosecuted the appeals by amending the necessary forms. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the resolution professional had not properly prosecuted the appeals by amending the necessary forms. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the resolution professional had not amended Form No. 36A. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to the right to file fresh appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the resolution professional had not properly prosecuted the appeals by amending the necessary forms. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the resolution professional had not amended Form No. 36A. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to the right to file fresh appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the resolution professional had not properly prosecuted the appeals by amending the necessary forms. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the resolution professional had not properly prosecuted the appeals by amending the necessary forms. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the resolution professional had not properly prosecuted the appeals by amending the necessary forms. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the resolution professional had not amended Form No. 36A. The appeals were dismissed without prejudice to the right to file fresh appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the offshore distribution commission income was business income and not taxable in India as the assessee did not have a permanent establishment. For the second assessment year, a related issue regarding interest income was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with the specific directions of a coordinate bench to decide the appeals on merits after granting an opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A)'s order questioning the Tribunal's authority was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the written submissions filed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the write-off of the amount was a settled position in law, as it was written off in the assessee's books and the lower authorities lacked evidence to controvert this. The addition was made on mere surmise and conjecture.

The Tribunal found that the AO had not properly verified the outstanding liabilities and that the assessee had settled most of these in subsequent years. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation and documentary evidence, including cash book entries correlated with bank drawings, to substantiate the cash payment. The AO had verified these details and taken a possible view, which the PCIT could not substitute with another view under Section 263.