ITAT Mumbai Judgments — June 2022

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 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 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 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 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 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 while interest on receivables for delays beyond the agreed credit period of 180 days could be benchmarked separately, charging interest for the initial 180 days was not sustainable. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside to this extent.

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 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 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 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 accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

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 Asco (India) Ltd. was not functionally comparable to the assessee due to significant differences in manufacturing capabilities, product range, technology, and business model. Therefore, Asco (India) Ltd. was excluded from the list of comparables.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is applicable only when expenses are claimed in the books of accounts. Since the assessee did not claim any expenditure in earning dividend income, the disallowance was not sustainable.

The Tribunal noted that a writ petition filed by the donee institution against the rejection of its approval was pending before the Bombay High Court. Both parties agreed to remand the matter.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision and the principle of consistency, directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to the extent of bringing the Gross Profit rate on alleged bogus purchases to the same rate as other genuine purchases.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The amount received by the assessee was considered a realization of his share in the net assets of the firm upon retirement, not taxable income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the adjustment should be restricted to 0.5%. This was based on previous rulings in the assessee's own case and a High Court decision.

The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Sections 43B and 36(1)(va) is not retrospective. Payments made on or before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) are allowable deductions.

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.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered were advisory in nature and did not involve making available technical knowledge, experience, or skill to the Indian company. Therefore, the payments were not taxable as fees for included services under the treaty.

The Tribunal held that the services provided by the assessee were advisory in nature and did not involve making available technical knowledge, experience, or skill to the Indian company. Therefore, the payments were not taxable as fees for included services under the treaty.

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to the unexplained expenditure, finding it was duly recorded and considered in settlement proceedings. However, it allowed the grounds regarding the disallowance of education cess, citing a retrospective amendment.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered were advisory and did not make available technical knowledge or skills to the Indian company, thus not falling under 'fees for included services' as per the treaty. Therefore, the fees were not taxable in India.

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 decided to remit the current appeal for AY 2015-16 back to the Assessing Officer. This is because the assessment for AY 2015-16 depends on the outcome of the re-assessment for AY 2014-15.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in an agency business and his actual gross receipts, which constituted commission income, were below the threshold requiring an audit. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable.

The Tribunal directed that disallowance under Section 14A be restricted to the amount of exempt income for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13. For other issues, several matters were restored to the AO for fresh examination, while some disallowances were confirmed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing principles of natural justice and substantial justice over technical considerations. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeals were remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantial justice and principles of natural justice. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeals were remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that dismissing the appeal on technicalities without deciding on merits was unsustainable. The CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) relied on inappropriate facts as the assessee had not advanced funds to sister concerns but only invested borrowed funds in shares. The matter was set aside for fresh examination by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal remitted the issue of Rs. 3,05,870/- back to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine a witness. However, the addition of Rs. 12,046/- was upheld, and the appeal for AY 2011-12 concerning Rs. 4,20,420/- was dismissed.

The tribunal allowed appeals for AY 2011-12 and 2014-15 for statistical purposes, and the appeal for AY 2012-13 was partly allowed for statistical purposes. Several issues were restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the interest expenditure was a project cost and should be allowed, especially given the consistent practice and acceptance by the department in prior years. It also deleted the disallowance under Section 14A as no exempt income was earned.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the appellate order passed in the name of a deceased person is a nullity. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals of Smt. Lata Sanap, dismissing one appeal of Shri Nilesh Sanap and allowing another. Key issues included the validity of proceedings under Section 153A/153C, additions related to agricultural income, unexplained investments, and sundry creditors.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable as it was passed without proper appreciation of facts and without giving the assessee adequate opportunity. The matter was remitted back to the PCIT for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that adhoc disallowances of business expenditure are unsustainable without specific shortcomings being pointed out. Relying on its own previous decisions for earlier assessment years, the Tribunal deleted the disallowances, stating that the Assessing Officer should identify specific issues rather than making general disallowances.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, and the assessee's Cross Objection was rendered infructuous and also dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing principles of natural justice and substantial justice over technical considerations. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeals were remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing principles of natural justice and substantial justice over technical considerations. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeals were remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions. For loans, the Tribunal followed its own precedent where similar issues involving the same parties were decided in favor of the assessee. For land investments, the Tribunal found that the purchases were properly recorded in the assessee's books and explained, with the AIR information not accurately reflecting the assessment year of the transactions.

The tribunal confirmed the disallowance of salary expenses as they were primarily used for rental income. However, the disallowance of professional charges was set aside due to payment via banking channels and TDS deduction. Additional grounds regarding refund and interest were restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was limited to the extent of exempt income earned, and the addition on account of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) was not sustainable as the loans were taken in the ordinary course of business for business exigencies.

The ITAT dismissed the appeals as the assessee did not prosecute them and there was no material to controvert the findings of the lower authorities. The CIT(A) had upheld the AO's additions regarding non-genuine fixed assets, related interest, and depreciation.

The ITAT dismissed the appeals as the assessee did not prosecute them and there was no material to controvert the findings of the lower authorities. The CIT(A) had upheld the AO's additions regarding non-genuine fixed assets, related interest, and depreciation.