ITAT Mumbai Judgments — June 2022

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decisions, finding no infirmity in the rejection of the assessee's contentions regarding the validity of proceedings and the additions made. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the additions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the income at 1% of the credit entries, considering the assessee's failure to provide evidence for a lower commission rate and the nature of the transactions. The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's action of passing assessment orders under Section 144, finding no merit in the assessee's grounds challenging it. Several grounds of appeal concerning disallowances and non-allowance of set-off of losses were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decisions, finding no infirmity in the rejection of the assessee's contentions regarding the validity of proceedings and the additions made. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the additions.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee failed to justify its claims for the disallowed expenditures before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) should have provided more opportunities to the assessee and passed a speaking order. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the appeal was restored for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that although the compliance was belated, there was no deliberate default by the assessee. Therefore, the penalty levied was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reopening under Section 147 was bad in law as the premise of income escaping assessment was non-existent, given that similar income was already taxed substantively in the hands of another assessee. The Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening were also based on incorrect assumptions.

The Tribunal held that the provision for periodic maintenance charges is an allowable expense as it was estimated using a scientific method and supported by technical reports. The Tribunal also noted that the grounds raised were covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own cases.

The CIT(A) held that the right to construct and operate the jetty is an intangible asset eligible for 25% depreciation and that the AO could not rectify this under Section 154 as it was beyond its scope. The Tribunal noted that a subsequent reassessment order under Section 147/143(3) had dealt with a similar issue, rendering the revenue's grounds infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in applying Section 80-IA(5) to the windmills as there were no unabsorbed losses carried forward from earlier years. The deduction for the windmills was allowed.

The Tribunal found that the additional evidence could not be filed before the lower authorities due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing by the NFAC. The grounds of appeal were not decided on merits.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals and dismissed the revenue's appeals. It found that the CIT(A) had erred in arbitrarily treating a portion of the share sale consideration as non-compete fees and in rejecting the valuation methods.

The Tribunal held that the debentures were not bonus debentures and the amount reinvested from dividend constituted the cost of acquisition. The authorities below failed to properly deal with the assessee's submissions.

The Tribunal restored the issue of the Rs. 21,00,000/- addition back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence. However, the ground regarding the rejection of books of account was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in deleting the additions. The assessee had discharged the initial burden by providing documents to prove identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness, and the AO failed to controvert these submissions.

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's action of passing assessment orders under Section 144, finding no merit in the assessee's grounds challenging it. Several grounds of appeal concerning disallowances and non-allowance of set-off of losses were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's action of passing assessment orders under Section 144, finding no merit in the assessee's grounds challenging it. Several grounds of appeal concerning disallowances and non-allowance of set-off of losses were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's action of passing assessment orders under Section 144, finding no merit in the assessee's grounds challenging it. Several grounds of appeal concerning disallowances and non-allowance of set-off of losses were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's action of passing assessment orders under Section 144, finding no merit in the assessee's grounds challenging it. Several grounds of appeal concerning disallowances and non-allowance of set-off of losses were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable as the issue of disallowance under Section 14A was debatable and there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Reliance Petroproducts, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's action of passing assessment orders under Section 144, finding no merit in the assessee's grounds challenging it. Several grounds of appeal concerning disallowances and non-allowance of set-off of losses were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's action of passing assessment orders under Section 144, finding no merit in the assessee's grounds challenging it. Several grounds of appeal concerning disallowances and non-allowance of set-off of losses were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's action of passing assessment orders under Section 144, finding no merit in the assessee's grounds challenging it. Several grounds of appeal concerning disallowances and non-allowance of set-off of losses were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the AO's action to reopen the assessment was based on a 'change of opinion' as the issue was already examined and allowed in the original assessment. Therefore, the reopening was bad in law.

The ITAT admitted the additional grounds as they were legal issues. However, since these issues involved a mixed question of fact and law requiring examination of records, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decisions, finding no infirmity in the rejection of the assessee's contentions regarding the validity of proceedings and the additions made. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the additions.

The Tribunal held that while the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on information from a government agency, the assessee was not properly provided with the reasons for reopening and an opportunity to object. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal found that while the AO had made some inquiries, it was unclear if the valuation report was properly considered. The Tribunal noted that a crucial valuation report was filed only during the revision proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-do the assessment focusing on the valuation report submitted during revision.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 144C, specifically by issuing a demand notice with the draft order, rendered the assessment order void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 15% of the bogus purchases. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this approach, relying on previous decisions in the assessee's own case and other judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred by invoking Rule 8D without first recording satisfaction that the assessee's disallowance was incorrect, as required by Section 14A(2). The disallowance made by the AO was therefore deleted.

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, especially given the assessee's absence. The additions confirmed by the CIT(A) regarding an excess advance received as business income and disallowance of business loss were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was based on an incorrect assumption of facts, as the transactions in question were speculative in nature and not purchases of shares. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had incurred a speculation loss which was not claimed for set-off.

The Tribunal followed its own previous order in a similar case involving the same assessee and the same employer. It found that the addition was based on a retracted statement and a promotion letter that was never acted upon, and that the assessee had provided Form 16 and bank statements supporting his declared salary.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred by invoking Rule 8D without first recording satisfaction that the assessee's disallowance was incorrect, as required by Section 14A(2). The disallowance made by the AO was therefore deleted.

The Tribunal found the assessee's submissions and supporting documents to be realistic and duly supported by material information. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and examination of facts.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred by invoking Rule 8D without first recording satisfaction that the assessee's disallowance was incorrect, as required by Section 14A(2). The disallowance made by the AO was therefore deleted.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds related to the most appropriate method (Internal TNMM) and the inclusion of comparables for external TNMM, directing the deletion of transfer pricing adjustments. It also allowed deductions for employee contributions and interest under Section 234A, while dismissing penalty proceedings and remanding MAT credit and refund issues.

The Tribunal held that since the appeal was time-barred and no application for condonation of delay was filed, the appeal could not be entertained.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to consider the assessee's submissions and evidence regarding the eligibility for deduction and the treatment of on-money receipts. Therefore, the appeals were remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction as required by Section 14A(2) before invoking Rule 8D. The AO's dissatisfaction was not based on an analysis of the assessee's accounts, making the recomputed disallowance unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that penalty levied merely on estimated addition cannot be sustained without proof of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.

The Tribunal held that export incentives related to technology upgradation and incremental exports are capital in nature. However, following Supreme Court decisions, education cess is considered part of income tax and not deductible.

The Tribunal held that the Additional CIT/Joint CIT lacked the power to function as an Assessing Officer without a specific order under Section 120(4)(b) and Section 127 of the Act. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantial justice and the assessee's reliance on incorrect advice from their chartered accountant. The Tribunal further held that the late fee levied under section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not sustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act granted immunity from penalty. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantial justice and the assessee's reliance on incorrect advice from their chartered accountant. The Tribunal further held that the late fee levied under section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered were advisory in nature and did not make available technical knowledge, experience, or skill to the recipient, thus not falling under the definition of 'fees for included services' in the Indo-US DTAA. Therefore, the payments were not taxable in India.