ITAT Mumbai Judgments — July 2022

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Grounds related to income from house property and income from other sources were examined, with one ground being allowed and another remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that as per Section 205 of the Income Tax Act, the assessee cannot be asked to pay tax again if it has already been deducted at source, even if the deductor failed to deposit it. The revenue should recover the amount from the deductor.

The Tribunal allowed the claim for loss arising on account of error trades, following a previous year's decision. It also directed the AO to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to the amount of dividend income and deleted the disallowance of entertainment expenses, finding it to be based on conjectures.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to examine the genuineness of the new documents and verify if the assessee fulfilled the conditions of the proviso to Section 50C.

The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was based were set aside by a co-ordinate bench and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the penalty proceedings do not survive.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is an allowance that should be allowed irrespective of the registration of the asset in the director's name, provided the payment was made by the company and it is part of the block of assets. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the depreciation disallowance.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of brokerage and commission, finding that the properties were stock-in-trade and the expenses were revenue in nature. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of interest disallowance, noting sufficient interest-free funds were available. Finally, the addition under Section 41(1) was deleted as the liability was considered live and not written back by the creditor.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of shares was indeed part of a family arrangement as directed by the CLB, and therefore, it did not constitute a taxable transfer. Consequently, no capital gains tax was liable to be paid on this amount.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in denying exemption. They failed to consider the one-time premium paid by the tenant, the unique access arrangements, and the fact that other statutory tenants also paid lower rents. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue accepted similar claims in subsequent years.

The Tribunal held that the gifts received from the assessee's in-laws were genuine, considering the gift deeds, the donors' status, and their past savings. The Tribunal also found that the cash deposits into the bank account were sufficiently explained by professional receipts and redeposited cash withdrawals.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to verify the utilization of own funds for investments and recompute the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, considering only dividend-yielding investments.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn. The appeals were no longer relevant or effective.

The Tribunal held that the waiver of an unsecured loan, being money and not a benefit in kind, does not attract Section 28(iv). It also held that the tolerance band for property transactions under Section 56(2)(x) applies retrospectively, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of part of the addition.

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

The Tribunal held that the advances made to the sister concern were to protect the assessee's business interests and controlling stake. Therefore, the interest paid on borrowed funds used for these advances should be allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to submit additional evidence, including a retraction affidavit from a director of the lending companies. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after considering the new evidence and providing an opportunity for a hearing.

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee were taxable in India as fees for technical services, following a prior AAR ruling on similar facts. However, it directed the AO to grant TDS credit and re-verify the levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn. The appeals were no longer relevant or effective.

The Tribunal held that the dividend income taxable under Section 115BBDA falls under the exception clause of Section 234C(1) as it stood during the relevant assessment year. Therefore, interest under Section 234C cannot be levied for the first two quarters when the dividend was received in the latter half of the year.

The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowances under Section 43B to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to present supporting material. The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding disallowances under Section 36(1)(va), following co-ordinate bench decisions that allowed deduction for employee contributions paid before the return filing due date.

The Tribunal held that while the AO's addition for AY 2013-14 was sustainable due to the availability of relevant documents, extrapolating this income to earlier years (AY 2007-08 to 2012-13) without any supporting evidence for those specific years was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the AO should have referred the property valuation to the DVO as requested by the assessee, as the value used by the AO was not the stamp duty valuation. The Tribunal also upheld the AO's action regarding the excess unabsorbed depreciation claimed.

The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had adequately examined the reasonableness of the commission paid for services rendered by MCPL, especially considering MCPL's shift from manufacturing to marketing. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while the AO's addition for AY 2013-14 was sustainable due to the availability of relevant documents, extrapolating this income to earlier years (AY 2007-08 to 2012-13) without any supporting evidence for those specific years was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the benefit of peak credit should be granted for transactions that can be linked through banking channels, remanding the matter for de novo adjudication. The addition for remuneration was upheld.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application and decided to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn. The appeals were no longer relevant or effective.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition on which the penalty was levied was deleted by the ITAT itself in the assessee's own case, the penalty cannot be sustained. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty was upheld.

The Tribunal held that while the AO's addition for AY 2013-14 was sustainable due to the availability of relevant documents, extrapolating this income to earlier years (AY 2007-08 to 2012-13) without any supporting evidence for those specific years was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that while the AO's addition for AY 2013-14 was sustainable due to the availability of relevant documents, extrapolating this income to earlier years (AY 2007-08 to 2012-13) without any supporting evidence for those specific years was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 to a non-existent company is bad in law. The CIT(A) was correct in allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground.

The Tribunal held that while the AO's addition for AY 2013-14 was sustainable due to the availability of relevant documents, extrapolating this income to earlier years (AY 2007-08 to 2012-13) without any supporting evidence for those specific years was not permissible.

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case involving Marriott International Inc. It held that the taxability of the income as royalty needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer, considering who owns the brand and in whose hands the income is chargeable.

The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had adequately investigated the client code modification. The assessee claimed the modification was due to a broker's error, a contention not properly examined. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh investigation.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the Revenue agreed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that while the AO's addition for AY 2013-14 was sustainable due to the availability of relevant documents, extrapolating this income to earlier years (AY 2007-08 to 2012-13) without any supporting evidence for those specific years was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that while the AO's addition for AY 2013-14 was sustainable due to the availability of relevant documents, extrapolating this income to earlier years (AY 2007-08 to 2012-13) without any supporting evidence for those specific years was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that while the AO's addition for AY 2013-14 was sustainable due to the availability of relevant documents, extrapolating this income to earlier years (AY 2007-08 to 2012-13) without any supporting evidence for those specific years was not permissible.

The Tribunal noted the consistent non-representation and lack of material from the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to the absence of any basis for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while the AO's addition for AY 2013-14 was sustainable due to the availability of relevant documents, extrapolating this income to earlier years (AY 2007-08 to 2012-13) without any supporting evidence for those specific years was not permissible.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee followed accounting standards for capitalizing borrowing costs and that debiting interest to P&L was acceptable. For AY 2014-15, the revenue's appeal was dismissed on similar grounds and also due to the revenue not appealing an identical issue in a prior year.

The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted as genuine, the entire purchase amount cannot be treated as non-genuine. Following High Court precedents, the Tribunal directed that only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases should be added to the income.

The Tribunal held that while the AO's addition for AY 2013-14 was sustainable due to the availability of relevant documents, extrapolating this income to earlier years (AY 2007-08 to 2012-13) without any supporting evidence for those specific years was not permissible.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee followed accounting standards for capitalizing borrowing costs and that debiting interest to P&L was acceptable. For AY 2014-15, the revenue's appeal was dismissed on similar grounds and also due to the revenue not appealing an identical issue in a prior year.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to submit additional evidence, including a retraction affidavit from a director of the lending companies. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after considering the new evidence and providing an opportunity for a hearing.

The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer made no additions in the assessment order passed consequent to the revision order, the appeal filed by the assessee has become infructuous.

The Tribunal held that while the AO's addition for AY 2013-14 was sustainable due to the availability of relevant documents, extrapolating this income to earlier years (AY 2007-08 to 2012-13) without any supporting evidence for those specific years was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that while the AO's addition for AY 2013-14 was sustainable due to the availability of relevant documents, extrapolating this income to earlier years (AY 2007-08 to 2012-13) without any supporting evidence for those specific years was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the remand report and the assessee's objections, passing an order based on assumptions. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after considering all submissions and providing an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that if the revisionary order under section 263 is set aside, any consequential assessment order passed in pursuance to it becomes infructuous. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in quashing the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that merely because the Revenue has filed an appeal against a co-ordinate bench's order before the High Court, it is not a reason to deny exemption to the assessee. The exemption benefit should continue unless the High Court reverses or stays the tribunal's order.