ITAT Mumbai Judgments — July 2022

The Tribunal held that since the sales made from the disputed purchases were not doubted, only the profit element should be taxed. However, it reduced the profit estimation from 12.5% to 3% based on industry reports and previous tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from its investments with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). A co-operative bank, despite the provisions of Section 80P(4), continues to be a co-operative society.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding notional rent, deleting the addition based on a previous decision. However, the appeal concerning the sale of the shop was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 as the AO had conducted adequate enquiries and taken a possible view based on the documents submitted by the assessee. The sale consideration declared by the assessee was also higher than the stamp duty value, precluding the need for further inquiry under Section 50C.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order did not have valid jurisdiction as there was no proper transfer order under section 127. Therefore, the assessment order was void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that income earned from feeder vessels obtained on a slot hire arrangement basis is eligible for exemption under Article 8 of the DTAA. This decision was based on previous judgments of the High Court and the Tribunal in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income cannot be levied when the addition is made on an estimated basis. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the PCIT had not granted reasonable time to the assessee to produce evidence related to old transactions. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order and restored the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the sales made from the disputed purchases were not doubted, only the profit element should be taxed. However, it reduced the profit estimation from 12.5% to 3% based on industry reports and previous tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal noted that the fresh assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer made no additions or variations. Therefore, the appeal challenging the PCIT's order was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that dividend income is exempt under Section 10(34) and that Section 44 does not override this exemption. It further held that Section 14A is not applicable to insurance companies, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case and other similar cases.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based solely on third-party information (statement of PKJ) without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination. The CIT(A) had dismissed the ground of reopening without proper adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the issue of ALP determination for administrative support services to the TPO for fresh consideration, stating that the primary question of whether services were rendered was not properly demonstrated or analyzed. The Tribunal also restored the issue of benchmarking the mark-up to the TPO due to a change in the assessee's benchmarking methodology.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law because it failed to specify the fault or charge against the assessee. Consequently, the penalty levied was vitiated.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground regarding transfer pricing adjustments for non-recovery of support/comfort letter charges, following its own prior decisions. It also allowed the ground related to Section 14A disallowance, again based on previous rulings in the assessee's favor.

The Tribunal held that the unearned revenue disclosed by the assessee was in line with accounting standards and had been consistently followed. It also ruled that payments made for Red Hat Subscriptions for reselling support services were not 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) or Article 12(3) of the India-Singapore DTAA.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's deficiencies were not sustainable as the assessee had filed confirmations, reconciled discrepancies, and the books of accounts were not rejected. The additions on account of cash receipts and payments were also directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal, following its own previous decision on a similar issue, directed the AO to restrict the addition to the extent of bringing the gross profit rate on disputed purchases to the same rate as other genuine purchases. The grounds related to the validity of reassessment proceedings were dismissed.

The Tribunal set aside the issue of ALP determination for administrative support services to the TPO for fresh consideration, stating that the primary question of whether services were rendered was not properly demonstrated or analyzed. The Tribunal also restored the issue of benchmarking the mark-up to the TPO due to a change in the assessee's benchmarking methodology.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) was not justified as the issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court. Furthermore, the amendments by the Finance Act, 2021, were not applicable retrospectively for the assessment year in question, and the adjustment fell outside the scope of Section 143(1)(a)(iv).

The Tribunal held that service tax collected by the assessee is not part of the gross receipts for the purpose of computing presumptive income under Section 44BB. This decision followed previous rulings by coordinate benches and High Courts.

The Tribunal held that only the license amount actually utilized during the year is taxable, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case and Supreme Court judgments. The benefit of the license is considered hypothetical income until utilized for imports.

The Tribunal held that the CPC's adjustments were erroneous as e-filing of Form-10 was not mandatory for the assessment year 2015-16. Furthermore, the CPC made adjustments without providing any reasons, which is arbitrary.

The Tribunal held that the income received by the assessee cannot be considered royalty under the Indian Income Tax Act or the DTAA, as it falls under an exclusion for cinematographic film distribution. Furthermore, without a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, the income cannot be taxed as business income.

The Tribunal held that only the license amount actually utilized during the year is taxable, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case and Supreme Court judgments. The benefit of the license is considered hypothetical income until utilized for imports.

The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction for bad debts written off, as the assessee had demonstrated the write-off in its books and taken steps for recovery. Similarly, the deduction under section 36(1)(viii) and the deletion of disallowance for travelling and conveyance expenses were confirmed.

The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.

The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.

The Tribunal restored the issues of estimated business income and cash credits to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. For AY 2015-16, the addition for brokerage/commission was held to be subsumed in the gross profit, and the ground was allowed.

The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.

The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.

The Tribunal held that the advances were in the nature of business transactions between two companies and not deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). The Tribunal followed its own prior decision on identical facts for a different assessment year.

The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee is a corporate debtor undergoing insolvency resolution, no suit can proceed against it. The erstwhile directors who signed the appeals are also functus officio.

The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.

The Tribunal held that running a pharmacy is an activity incidental or ancillary to the dominant object of running a hospital, following established judicial precedents. Therefore, the surplus from the pharmacy should not be taxed separately.

The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.

The Tribunal held that profit should be estimated on bogus purchases at 12.5% and confirmed additions to that extent. The addition for unexplained expenditure was deleted as no evidence of incurring such expenditure by the assessee was found.

The Tribunal held that procedural law should not frustrate justice and that the CIT(A) should have condoned the manual filing. The penalty appeal was also set aside pending final adjudication of the quantum additions.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee is a corporate debtor undergoing insolvency resolution, no suit can proceed against it. The erstwhile directors who signed the appeals are also functus officio.

The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.

The Tribunal held that running a pharmacy is an activity incidental or ancillary to the dominant object of running a hospital, following established judicial precedents. Therefore, the surplus from the pharmacy should not be taxed separately.

The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.

The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.

The Tribunal held that profit should be estimated on bogus purchases at 12.5% and confirmed additions to that extent. The addition for unexplained expenditure was deleted as no evidence of incurring such expenditure by the assessee was found.

The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.

The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.

The Tribunal held that payments made to Holdings were not in the nature of royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA, following the Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appellants were not required to deduct TDS.