ITAT Mumbai Judgments — July 2022

The Tribunal held that similar issues in preceding assessment years were decided in favour of the assessee by the coordinate bench. Following these precedents, the Tribunal allowed the deduction for the subscription payment.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the year of taxability of the transfer of development rights. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on the issue of unexplained expenditure.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the year of taxability of the transfer of development rights. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on the issue of unexplained expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153A was bad in law as it did not specify the incriminating material found during the search. Consequently, the assessment made under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A was also deemed bad in law.

The Tribunal held that passing the order before the scheduled hearing date and rejecting the adjournment request without sufficient cause violated the principles of natural justice. The PCIT's order was set aside solely on this procedural ground.

The Tribunal held that since the substantive addition in the hands of M/s. Shree Global Tradefin Ltd. was deleted on merits by a coordinate bench, the protective addition in the hands of the assessee, who acted as a conduit, must also be deleted. Furthermore, the reopening of the assessment was found to be bad in law due to lack of proper application of mind by the approving authority.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the guarantee commission to 0.5% based on a jurisdictional High Court precedent. It also upheld the restriction of disallowances for motor car and overseas travelling expenses to 10% of the incurred amounts.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict guarantee commission to 0.5% by following a jurisdictional High Court precedent. It also upheld the restriction of disallowance for motor car and overseas travelling expenses to 10% as the dispute was only regarding the quantum of allowable expenses.

The Tribunal held that the fabrication charges were not taxable in India as they did not fall under the definition of 'fees for technical services' under the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. The services were not rendered in connection with services for which a payment described in paragraph 3 of the treaty was received by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the issue of DAPE existence was academic as profit attribution to it was not in dispute and the payment of arm's length remuneration was not contested. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's appeal was dismissed and the assessee's appeal was allowed in limited terms regarding profit attribution.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not justified when the addition was made on an estimated basis. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had provided documentary evidence for purchases, and the inability to trace suppliers should not automatically lead to a penalty.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is required if there is no exempt income. Regarding corporate guarantees, it was held that if the guarantee benefits the parent company, no separate markup is needed, and such transactions may not fall under the definition of international transactions. The issue of subsidy treatment was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the issue of DAPE existence was academic as profit attribution to it was not in dispute and the payment of arm's length remuneration was not contested. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's appeal was dismissed and the assessee's appeal was allowed in limited terms regarding profit attribution.

The Tribunal held that the issue of DAPE existence was academic as profit attribution to it was not in dispute and the payment of arm's length remuneration was not contested. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's appeal was dismissed and the assessee's appeal was allowed in limited terms regarding profit attribution.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when no exempt income is earned. Regarding Section 36(1)(iii), the Tribunal agreed that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance, noting the assessee had substantial interest-free funds and the AO's method of calculating notional interest was flawed.

The Tribunal held that a statement recorded during a survey action, especially when retracted, lacks evidentiary value without corroborative evidence. Consequently, the addition made solely on the basis of such a statement was not justified.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is required if there is no exempt income. Regarding corporate guarantees, it was held that if the guarantee benefits the parent company, no separate markup is needed, and such transactions may not fall under the definition of international transactions. The issue of subsidy treatment was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that since the lease agreement did not specifically mention or bifurcate rent for furniture and fixtures, they could not be separated from the basic charge of rent for the immovable property. Therefore, depreciation on movable assets could not be claimed separately.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to produce all necessary evidence, and both parties were to be afforded an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271G is not leviable when the assessee has furnished all information and documents it was required to produce as per accounting standards, and not when the submitted information is not acceptable to the TPO. Following previous decisions in similar cases, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty.

The Tribunal held that a statement recorded during a survey action, especially when retracted, lacks evidentiary value without corroborative evidence. Consequently, the addition made solely on the basis of such a statement was not justified.

The Tribunal held that long-term capital loss on sale of shares, even if the gains are exempt under Section 10(38), can be set off against other capital gains. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on disallowance under Section 14A, helicopter charges, and software license charges, following its own precedents.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Both the assessee's representative and the revenue's representative agreed to the settlement.

The Tribunal found that the issue raised in the rectification application pertained to the correct computation of disallowance under Section 14A. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to the entire disallowance of interest. However, it partly allowed the appeal on the second ground, remanding the matter to the AO for re-computation of allowable interest, considering specific amounts as business funds.

The Tribunal held that the transactions between the assessee and the company were in the regular course of business, involving loan advances and repayments with interest. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer overlooked these factual aspects and the audited financial statements.

The Tribunal held that surcharge is not leviable on partnership firms as per CBDT Circular No. 1/2011. Consequently, the correct tax effect was below the monetary limit for appeals. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is required if there is no exempt income. Regarding corporate guarantees, it was held that if the guarantee benefits the parent company, no separate markup is needed, and such transactions may not fall under the definition of international transactions. The issue of subsidy treatment was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the income from the sale of RECs is a capital receipt, not a business receipt. The Tribunal followed its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2015-16 and the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present evidence. This was done in the interest of substantial justice due to the assessee's inability to represent themselves.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the AO. This was due to the assessee being under corporate insolvency and a moratorium period declared by the NCLT, which prohibits the continuation of any suit against the debtor.

The Tribunal held that dismissing the appeal based on a wrongly assumed fact that the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme is unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the issue of DAPE existence was academic as profit attribution to it was not in dispute and the payment of arm's length remuneration was not contested. Therefore, the Assessing Officer's appeal was dismissed and the assessee's appeal was allowed in limited terms regarding profit attribution.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) was warranted as the assessee's own funds exceeded its investments. For Rule 8D(2)(iii), the AO was directed to re-compute the disallowance considering only investments yielding exempt income. The addition to book profits under Section 115JB for Section 14A disallowance was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's action under Section 263 was not acceptable as the AO had applied his mind, verified the facts, and considered the assessee's submissions. The assessment order did not satisfy the twin conditions of being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating the merits. Since the Assessing Officer had made a disallowance under Section 14A without considering the assessee's submissions, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered did not meet the 'make available' clause of the India-Singapore DTAA, as no technical knowledge or skill was transferred to enable the Indian entity to perform the services independently. Therefore, the fees were not taxable as 'Fees for Technical Services' in India.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by previous decisions of the Tribunal and the jurisdictional High Court in favour of the assessee. It ruled that the pendency of an SLP before the Supreme Court does not dilute the binding nature of the High Court's judgment.

The Tribunal held that the management fees received by the assessee were not taxable as fees for technical services (FTS) under the India-Singapore DTAA. The 'make available' clause was not satisfied as the services did not enable the Indian entity to independently provide similar services.

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium imposed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), all proceedings, including those before the ITAT, stand in abeyance. The IBC has an overriding effect on the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission that the CIT(A) did not consider recent legal developments regarding transfer pricing and the need for the assessee to prove no nexus between borrowed funds and capital asset acquisition. Both issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the assessee's plea regarding the interest on FCDs, deleting the adjustment by following a previous order in the assessee's own case. The selection of comparables for investment advisory services was also a point of contention between the parties.

The Tribunal restored the issues on merits back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to furnish all relevant documents, and the Assessing Officer was to decide the issues afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the AY 2011-12 appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the interest of natural justice. For AY 2014-15, it confirmed the Section 14A disallowance, restored the yacht expenses and deemed rental income issues for fresh examination, confirmed disallowance of travelling/car expenses, and restored the depreciation on car issue for fresh examination. The AY 2016-17 deemed rental income issue was also restored.

The Tribunal restored the AY 2011-12 appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the interest of natural justice. For AY 2014-15, it confirmed the Section 14A disallowance, restored the yacht expenses and deemed rental income issues to the CIT(A), and confirmed the disallowance of travelling/car expenses.

The Tribunal restored the AY 2011-12 appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the interest of natural justice. For AY 2014-15, it confirmed the Section 14A disallowance, restored the yacht expenses and deemed rental income issues for fresh examination, confirmed disallowance of travelling/car expenses, and restored the depreciation on car issue for fresh examination. The AY 2016-17 deemed rental income issue was also restored.

The tribunal held that due to the moratorium imposed by the NCLT, the present appeal proceedings could not be continued. The IBC has an overriding effect on other laws, including the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) was warranted as the assessee's own funds exceeded its investments. For Rule 8D(2)(iii), the AO was directed to re-compute the disallowance considering only investments yielding exempt income. The addition to book profits under Section 115JB for Section 14A disallowance was also deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the assessee's plea regarding the interest on FCDs, deleting the adjustment by following a previous order in the assessee's own case. The selection of comparables for investment advisory services was also a point of contention between the parties.

The Tribunal held that lease rentals received for the alloy were not royalty, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case. The issue of ESOP expense reimbursement was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication. The interest on income tax refund was directed to be taxed at 15% as per the India-USA DTAA.