ITAT Mumbai Judgments — June 2022

The Tribunal held that the appeals are not maintainable in their current format because the resolution professional did not amend the appeal form. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to file fresh appeals or seek restoration.

The Tribunal held that since the AO acknowledged the sales and accepted that purchases were made (though potentially from the grey market), and the assessee provided quantitative details and payment evidence, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that since the AO acknowledged the sales and accepted that purchases were made (though potentially from the grey market), and the assessee provided quantitative details and payment evidence, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that while accommodation entries were involved, the commission expenses estimated by the AO were not based on any cogent evidence. Therefore, the addition was restricted to 2% of the LTCG.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on a change of opinion and reappraisal of existing facts, without any new material. Therefore, the reopening of assessment under section 147 was considered bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied exemption under Section 54F merely because he was a joint owner of 50% of a property. The Assessing Officer was not justified in denying the claim, and the first appellate authority was incorrect in upholding the denial.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee's intention was that of an investor, considering her high net worth, investment portfolio, and past treatment by the department. The Tribunal also dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding the deletion of Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) on off-market share transactions, following the principle that such losses are eligible for set-off and carry forward if STT is not paid.

The Tribunal held that the appeals are not maintainable in their current format because the resolution professional did not amend the appeal form. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to file fresh appeals or seek restoration.

The Tribunal held that the appeals are not maintainable in their current format because the resolution professional did not amend the appeal form. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to file fresh appeals or seek restoration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not maintaining the specific details as required by Rule 10D, considering the practical difficulties in the diamond trading business. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271G was not justified.

The Tribunal, following its own precedent for a similar issue in the assessee's own case, restricted the adhoc disallowance of trip expenses to Rs. 1 lakh.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, citing principles of natural justice, and remanded the case for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case with evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the additional evidence and remand report supported the assessee's claims regarding higher expenses. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A)'s partial allowance of interest expenses, distinguishing between penal and compensatory interest.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the reasonable cause presented by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed him to decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the payment of Rs. 30 Lakhs was made to remove the encumbrance on the property and was a condition precedent for the new buyers. Therefore, it was deductible under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the appeals are not maintainable in their current format because the resolution professional did not amend the appeal form. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to file fresh appeals or seek restoration.

The Tribunal held that the appeals are not maintainable in their current format because the resolution professional did not amend the appeal form. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to file fresh appeals or seek restoration.

The Tribunal held that the appeals are not maintainable in their current format because the resolution professional did not amend the appeal form. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to file fresh appeals or seek restoration.

The Tribunal held that the appeals are not maintainable in their current format because the resolution professional did not amend the appeal form. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to file fresh appeals or seek restoration.

The Tribunal held that the appeals are not maintainable in their current format because the resolution professional did not amend the appeal form. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to file fresh appeals or seek restoration.

The Tribunal held that the appeals are not maintainable in their current format because the resolution professional did not amend the appeal form. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to file fresh appeals or seek restoration.

The ITAT held that since the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 were deleted by the CIT(A) and this deletion was affirmed by the Tribunal, the issue of set-off of losses against such income became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that no suit or other legal proceedings can be initiated by or against the corporate debtor once liquidation proceedings have commenced, as per Section 33(5) of the IBC. The IBC has overriding effect over the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that 100% disallowance for bogus purchases is not permissible when sales are not in doubt. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to the gross profit rate of genuine purchases.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C were not sustainable as there was no incriminating material relevant to AY 2013-14 and no pending assessment for that year. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed.

The Tribunal held that for assessments under Section 153C, there must be assessment year-specific incriminating material. Since no such material was found for the years in question, the assessments were deemed to be without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that for assessments under Section 153C, there must be assessment year-specific incriminating material. Since no such material was found for the years in question, the assessments were deemed to be without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that for assessments under Section 153C, there must be assessment year-specific incriminating material. Since no such material was found for the years in question, the assessments were deemed to be without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that no suit or other legal proceedings can be initiated by or against the corporate debtor once liquidation proceedings have commenced, as per Section 33(5) of the IBC. The IBC has overriding effect over the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that no suit or other legal proceedings can be initiated by or against the corporate debtor once liquidation proceedings have commenced, as per Section 33(5) of the IBC. The IBC has overriding effect over the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that no suit or other legal proceedings can be initiated by or against the corporate debtor once liquidation proceedings have commenced, as per Section 33(5) of the IBC. The IBC has overriding effect over the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271AAB cannot be levied as the mandatory search under section 132 of the Act was not initiated on the assessee, but on a separate entity. Therefore, the conditions for invoking section 271AAB were not met.

The Tribunal held that the assessee and the overseas co-broker were independent brokers and the remittances were not income of the overseas co-broker but a transfer of funds. It was also held that neither the non-resident reinsurers nor the overseas co-broker had a Permanent Establishment in India, and the assessee was not a dependent agent Permanent Establishment.

The Tribunal held that no suit or other legal proceedings can be initiated by or against the corporate debtor once liquidation proceedings have commenced, as per Section 33(5) of the IBC. The IBC has overriding effect over the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that no suit or other legal proceedings can be initiated by or against the corporate debtor once liquidation proceedings have commenced, as per Section 33(5) of the IBC. The IBC has overriding effect over the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that for assessments under Section 153C, there must be assessment year-specific incriminating material. Since no such material was found for the years in question, the assessments were deemed to be without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that no suit or other legal proceedings can be initiated by or against the corporate debtor once liquidation proceedings have commenced, as per Section 33(5) of the IBC. The IBC has overriding effect over the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that no suit or other legal proceedings can be initiated by or against the corporate debtor once liquidation proceedings have commenced, as per Section 33(5) of the IBC. The IBC has overriding effect over the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that no suit or other legal proceedings can be initiated by or against the corporate debtor once liquidation proceedings have commenced, as per Section 33(5) of the IBC. The IBC has overriding effect over the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that no suit or other legal proceedings can be initiated by or against the corporate debtor once liquidation proceedings have commenced, as per Section 33(5) of the IBC. The IBC has overriding effect over the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that no suit or other legal proceedings can be initiated by or against the corporate debtor once liquidation proceedings have commenced, as per Section 33(5) of the IBC. The IBC has overriding effect over the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that for assessments under Section 153C, there must be assessment year-specific incriminating material. Since no such material was found for the years in question, the assessments were deemed to be without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that no suit or other legal proceedings can be initiated by or against the corporate debtor once liquidation proceedings have commenced, as per Section 33(5) of the IBC. The IBC has overriding effect over the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that no suit or other legal proceedings can be initiated by or against the corporate debtor once liquidation proceedings have commenced, as per Section 33(5) of the IBC. The IBC has overriding effect over the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that no suit or other legal proceedings can be initiated by or against the corporate debtor once liquidation proceedings have commenced, as per Section 33(5) of the IBC. The IBC has overriding effect over the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that no suit or other legal proceedings can be initiated by or against the corporate debtor once liquidation proceedings have commenced, as per Section 33(5) of the IBC. The IBC has overriding effect over the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that no suit or other legal proceedings can be initiated by or against the corporate debtor once liquidation proceedings have commenced, as per Section 33(5) of the IBC. The IBC has overriding effect over the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that no suit or other legal proceedings can be initiated by or against the corporate debtor once liquidation proceedings have commenced, as per Section 33(5) of the IBC. The IBC has overriding effect over the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that no suit or other legal proceedings can be initiated by or against the corporate debtor once liquidation proceedings have commenced, as per Section 33(5) of the IBC. The IBC has overriding effect over the Income-tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the AO's refusal to allow the assessee to cross-examine Mr. Akshay Doshi violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the AO.