ITAT Mumbai Judgments — July 2022

The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to present the required details to substantiate its claim. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the reimbursement of expenses, supported by extensive documentation, and that the addition made on this ground deserved to be deleted. The Tribunal also remanded an issue regarding the omission to quantify and carry forward capital loss back to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 8.32% of the bogus purchases. They found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order as the Revenue failed to provide evidence to justify the higher gross profit percentage.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act was defective as it did not strike off the irrelevant limb of Section 271(1)(c). Consequently, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence showing VAT payment and remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. If VAT was paid before the due date of filing the return, relief under section 43B would be granted.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present its case on merits. This was done in the interest of justice, given the ex-parte nature of the previous order.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A as no dividend income was earned. It also upheld the deletion of inventory write-off based on previous rulings. However, the issue of interest on loans to subsidiaries was remanded for fresh examination due to lack of details on own funds.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no perversity. The CIT(A) had correctly rejected the assessee's books of accounts under Section 145(3) and estimated the profit at 8% of the turnover.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's declaration under the VSVS scheme was accepted and tax was paid, the Revenue's appeal had become infructuous.