ITAT Mumbai Judgments — June 2022

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 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 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 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 assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected staff availability. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected staff availability. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal deleted the penalty because the Assessing Officer failed to specify the charge (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the show cause notice, rendering the penalty proceedings invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected staff availability. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected staff availability. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected staff availability. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act 2021 is prospective. Since the employee's contribution was paid before the due date of filing the return, the disallowance made under section 143(1) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act 2021 is prospective. Since the payment was made before the due date of filing the return, the disallowance made under section 143(1) is deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on staff availability. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming that a 5% gross profit rate should be applied to bogus purchases. This decision was supported by jurisdictional High Court judgments.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The Departmental Representative had no objections to the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on staff availability. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on staff availability. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on staff availability. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had considered the facts, additional evidence, and remand report before deleting the additions. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on staff availability. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on staff availability. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal noted that grounds related to the validity of reassessment notices were not pressed. For the disallowance of business expenditure, the Tribunal applied its previous order which set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for de-novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the 5th proviso to Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act is applicable for computing depreciation on assets acquired under a slump sale, even without invoking Section 170. The balancing figure between the slump sale value and the WDV of assets taken over qualifies as goodwill and is eligible for depreciation.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid as it was based on a 'change of opinion' and not on any new tangible material. The AO had already considered the assessee's working and justification for disallowance under Section 14A during the original assessment.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective, not retrospective. Therefore, the disallowance made under section 143(1) for late deposit of employee's contribution to PF and ESI, when paid before the due date of filing the return, was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular, and the information source was internal, not an external agency. Therefore, the appeals were infructuous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, allowing the appeals for statistical purposes. The issue of deduction under Section 80IB(9) was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication based on the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision in a related case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on staff availability. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular, and the information source was internal, not an external agency. Therefore, the appeals were infructuous.

The Tribunal held that since the sales were undisputed and supported by quantitative records and audited accounts, the entire purchase amount could not be added. The addition should be restricted to the extent of gross profit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on staff availability. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular, and the information source was internal, not an external agency. Therefore, the appeals were infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on staff availability. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, allowing the appeals for statistical purposes. The issue of deduction under Section 80IB(9) was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication based on the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision in a related case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on staff availability. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the revenue cannot challenge an identical order of the CIT(A) in a subsequent year when it had accepted the same order in a prior year without appeal. Such differential treatment is not permissible in law.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in restricting the addition by applying a gross profit rate of 15% on the bogus purchases, as it followed an earlier order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for the partial non-compliance. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on staff availability. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was justified based on the information received from the Investigation Wing. However, on merits, following a coordinate bench decision, the addition was deleted as the assessee had discharged its initial onus and the lender's statement was retracted.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is justified when no exempt income has been earned during the relevant period, especially before the insertion of the explanation to Section 14A. Consequently, the restricted disallowance was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that under the mercantile system of accounting and AS-29, provisions for expenses are allowable if there is a present obligation from a past event, probable outflow of resources, and a reliable estimate. It clarified that an accrued liability is not an unascertained liability, even if payment is postponed due to delayed bills.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on staff availability. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for the partial non-compliance. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act 2021 is prospective, and the disallowance made under Section 143(1) was not permissible in this case. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in Kalpesh Synthetics (P.) Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to section 36(1)(va) is prospective, not retrospective. It also noted that the payment was made before the due date for filing the return, and the tax auditor's report did not constitute a basis for disallowance under section 143(1)(a)(iv).

The Tribunal held that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for the partial non-compliance. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the Revenue's appeals was below the monetary limit specified in the CBDT circular, and the information source was internal, not an external agency. Therefore, the appeals were infructuous.

The Tribunal held that since the additions made by the Assessing Officer, on which the penalty was levied, were deleted by the ITAT itself in earlier proceedings, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) are unsustainable and do not survive. Therefore, the cancellation of penalty by the CIT(A) was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a reasonable cause for the partial non-compliance. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was directed to be deleted.