ITAT Mumbai Judgments — July 2022

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the reasons to be bonafide and constituting sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the payee institution was approved at the time of donation, and subsequent withdrawal of approval does not affect the assessee's claim. Following previous judgments on identical facts, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to present its case before the AO. Relying on a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to present its case before the AO. Relying on a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to present its case before the AO. Relying on a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the reasons to be bonafide and constituting sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that cash deposits made from book balances should be considered explained if the assessee's books of account are not rejected. Since the AO and CIT(A) had not examined the assessee's books of account, the issue was set aside to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided PAN of the lenders and its own bank statements showing NEFT transfers. The AO could have verified the transactions using his statutory powers and the assessee cannot be forced to obtain lenders' bank documents.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide credible evidence to conclusively prove the purchases were bogus, relying only on information from the Sales Tax Department. The CIT(A)'s restriction of the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeal lacked jurisdiction and therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that since a coordinate bench had decided a similar issue in a related case, sustaining the CIT(A)'s estimation of 18.8% profit, the same approach should be followed. Therefore, the findings of the CIT(A) were sustained.

The Tribunal held that since a coordinate bench had decided a similar issue in a related case, sustaining the CIT(A)'s estimation of 18.8% profit, the same approach should be followed. Therefore, the findings of the CIT(A) were sustained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the deposit by demonstrating prior cash withdrawals that exceeded the deposited amount. The AO's disallowance based on a lack of business rationale for holding cash and the failure to redeposit the entire withdrawn amount was deemed legally unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that expenses incurred for additions, modifications, and alterations to make a new flat habitable form part of the cost of the new flat and are eligible for deduction under Section 54.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, finding sufficient cause for its non-furnishing before the AO. The issues were restored to the AO for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation, corroborated by a bank manager's inquiry, that the deposits were not made by him. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 was not warranted.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, finding sufficient cause for its non-furnishing before the AO. The issues were restored to the AO for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order for the son's protective assessment appeal and restored it to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the son's appeal after deciding the father's substantive assessment appeal.

The Tribunal held that the appeals could not be sustained due to the ongoing insolvency proceedings and the lack of proper authorization. Following a coordinate bench's order, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified as the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence of the agents' services, including agreements and invoices. The AO had not disproved this evidence, nor had they demonstrated any incriminating material found during the search that supported the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified as the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence of the agents' services, including agreements and invoices. The AO had not disproved this evidence, nor had they demonstrated any incriminating material found during the search that supported the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified as the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence of the agents' services, including agreements and invoices. The AO had not disproved this evidence, nor had they demonstrated any incriminating material found during the search that supported the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on FSI is allowable at 10% on the entire cost, following its own prior decision. It also upheld the allowance of depreciation on intangible assets and the deletion of interest disallowances, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s orders.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified as the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence of the agents' services, including agreements and invoices. The AO had not disproved this evidence, nor had they demonstrated any incriminating material found during the search that supported the disallowance.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order for the son's protective assessment appeal and restored it to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the son's appeal after deciding the father's substantive assessment appeal.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on FSI is allowable at 10% on the entire cost, following its own prior decision. It also upheld the allowance of depreciation on intangible assets and the deletion of interest disallowances, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s orders.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on FSI is allowable at 10% on the entire cost, following its own prior decision. It also upheld the allowance of depreciation on intangible assets and the deletion of interest disallowances, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s orders.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer made additions under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, not under Section 56(2)(vii) for excess premium. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's doubts about the business foundation and the genuineness of the transactions were valid, as mere receipt of money through banking channels was insufficient to discharge the onus under Section 68.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of accrued interest, considering it as notional income given the circumstances and the fact that the borrowing company was sick. The Tribunal also found that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without fresh material, merely on a change of opinion.

The Tribunal held that the appeals could not be sustained due to the ongoing insolvency proceedings and the lack of proper authorization. Following a coordinate bench's order, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals could not be sustained due to the ongoing insolvency proceedings and the lack of proper authorization. Following a coordinate bench's order, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals could not be sustained due to the ongoing insolvency proceedings and the lack of proper authorization. Following a coordinate bench's order, the appeals were dismissed.

The ITAT held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) was justified in cancelling the registration. The tribunal found that the assessee's activities were not genuine and not in accordance with its stated objects, especially after being declared an unlawful association by the government.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234D is chargeable on the entire excess refund, including the interest component received under Section 244A, as the language of the section is clear and the interest is compensatory. The claim for interest on interest under Section 244A was also dismissed following a Supreme Court decision.

The Tribunal held that the appeals could not be sustained due to the ongoing insolvency proceedings and the lack of proper authorization. Following a coordinate bench's order, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals could not be sustained due to the ongoing insolvency proceedings and the lack of proper authorization. Following a coordinate bench's order, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that no proceedings can remain pending with any Court or Tribunal once Insolvency Resolution Proceedings have been initiated. Since the Interim Resolution Professional had not impleaded themselves, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that no proceedings could be continued against the corporate debtor during the moratorium period. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that no proceedings could be continued against the corporate debtor during the moratorium period. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT erred in initiating revision proceedings under Section 263. The AO had conducted adequate inquiries and was satisfied with the assessee's submissions regarding the property valuation, making the assessment order neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of deduction under section 80P was not valid. It reasoned that section 80A(5) and section 80AC were not applicable for the assessment years in question, and the Assessing Officer lacked the power under section 143(1) to disallow such deductions prior to April 1, 2021.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the issues in the appeal became infructuous, and the assessee was allowed to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the allowability of the cost of construction was never an issue before the High Court or the Tribunal in previous proceedings. The Assessing Officer improperly raised this issue while giving effect to the High Court's order.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of deduction under section 80P was not valid. It reasoned that section 80A(5) and section 80AC were not applicable for the assessment years in question, and the Assessing Officer lacked the power under section 143(1) to disallow such deductions prior to April 1, 2021.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's undertaking and difficult circumstances, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to be heard, with a caution for future compliance.

The Tribunal held that Section 43B is attracted even if the liability is not routed through the Profit & Loss account, especially when Section 145A mandates an inclusive method for valuation. The disallowance was restored to the extent the outstanding liability was included in the deviations reported by the tax auditor.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s action under Section 263 was not justified. The assessee had provided sufficient documentation and explanations, and the AO's order was not demonstrably erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the reopening under Section 147 was bad in law as the AO's reasons were based on incorrect assumptions and there was no escapement of income. Consequently, the proceedings initiated under Section 147 were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of deduction under section 80P was not permissible under section 143(1) for the assessment years in question. Sections 80A(5) and 80AC were also found not applicable to the assessee's case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the assessee's medical condition. In the interest of natural justice, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.