ITAT Mumbai Judgments — June 2022

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 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 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 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 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 CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on a technical ground without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

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 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 held that the interest income earned by the assessee credit cooperative society from fixed deposits was attributable to its business and therefore eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The CIT(A)'s finding to the contrary was set aside.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was barred by limitation. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal ruled that the time limit for revising an order dropping reassessment proceedings must be computed with reference to the original assessment order, not the order dropping the proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover advances and partner withdrawals, thus no interest-bearing funds were diverted. Regarding travelling expenses, the Tribunal found the assessee's detailed breakup and business purpose justification sufficient to delete the ad-hoc disallowance.

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 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 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 held that since the jewellery was for personal use and declared in the wealth tax return, Section 69 was not attracted. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal held that if interest-free funds available with the assessee exceed the interest-free advances made, no disallowance of interest expenditure is warranted. The issue of interest disallowance was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing exemption under Section 54B for lands held for 18 months or more. It was held that the land's status as agricultural in revenue records and use for cultivation for two successive seasons satisfied the conditions.

The CIT(A) held that derivative transactions (futures and options) were non-speculative business losses, while share trading with delivery was speculative. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), finding derivative losses to be business losses and not subject to Section 73's explanation.

The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution was deposited within the extended due date prescribed under the provident fund laws. Therefore, no disallowance could be made in the hands of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the government grant received as an Octroi duty refund under a scheme of incentives is a capital receipt. It also reversed the disallowance of interest on the grounds that the assessee had sufficient own funds and interest-free deposits for business purposes.

The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the penalty, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier year on identical facts. The Tribunal also noted several other judicial precedents supporting the cancellation of such penalties in the diamond trade.

The Tribunal held that the education cess and surcharge are covered under the scope of Article 2 of the DTAA. Therefore, the taxability of interest income is restricted to the rates specified in the respective articles of the DTAA, overriding domestic tax laws regarding surcharge and cess.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable because the assessee company had already been wound up and the liquidator had not appeared before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that winding up proceedings were completed as per the Companies Act, 1956, and the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that expenses of the independent Dombivali unit should not be allocated to the Taloja EOU unit. It also ruled that losses from non-EOU units cannot be set off against the profits of EOU units for determining Section 10B exemption.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing details of creditors, including PAN, financial statements, and bank statements. The Assessing Officer was not justified in making additions under Section 68 when the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions were established.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on a wrong factual premise. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal deleted the penalty. It found the penalty notices to be defective and held that penalty cannot be levied on ad-hoc estimations of profit, especially when the addition was restricted to a gross profit rate.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 14A, which clarifies its applicability even without exempt income, is effective from April 1, 2022, and thus not applicable to the assessment years under consideration. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions under Section 14A was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 14A, which clarifies its applicability even without exempt income, is effective from April 1, 2022, and thus not applicable to the assessment years under consideration. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions under Section 14A was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 14A, which clarifies its applicability even without exempt income, is effective from April 1, 2022, and thus not applicable to the assessment years under consideration. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions under Section 14A was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 14A, which clarifies its applicability even without exempt income, is effective from April 1, 2022, and thus not applicable to the assessment years under consideration. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions under Section 14A was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing details of creditors, including PAN, financial statements, and bank statements. The Assessing Officer was not justified in making additions under Section 68 when the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions were established.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in limiting the disallowance to the income from the violative investment, not the entire income. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision allowing the carry forward of the deficit.

The Tribunal held that for Article 11(6) to apply, the interest income must be effectively connected with the PE, meaning it must be directly or indirectly attributable to the PE under Article 7(1). The mere existence of a PE is insufficient to trigger the exclusion clause.

The Tribunal held that outstanding trade payables cannot be taxed as cessation of liability if they are still enforceable and not written off. It also ruled that Section 36(1)(iii) is for interest on borrowings, not for notional interest on sundry creditors' debit balances.

The Tribunal deleted the penalty. It found the penalty notices to be defective and held that penalty cannot be levied on ad-hoc estimations of profit, especially when the addition was restricted to a gross profit rate.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 14A, which clarifies its applicability even without exempt income, is effective from April 1, 2022, and thus not applicable to the assessment years under consideration. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions under Section 14A was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 14A, which clarifies its applicability even without exempt income, is effective from April 1, 2022, and thus not applicable to the assessment years under consideration. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions under Section 14A was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 14A, which clarifies its applicability even without exempt income, is effective from April 1, 2022, and thus not applicable to the assessment years under consideration. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions under Section 14A was upheld.