ITAT Mumbai Judgments — July 2022

The tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because insolvency proceedings had been initiated against the corporate debtors, and a moratorium was declared. Appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professionals (IRPs) with committee approval.

The Tribunal held that the cross-appeals were not maintainable in their current form due to the moratorium period and the non-impleadment of the Resolution Professional. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to revive them after the moratorium period.

The tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because insolvency proceedings had been initiated against the corporate debtors, and a moratorium was declared. Appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professionals (IRPs) with committee approval.

The Tribunal held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, specifically Section 14, prohibits the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against a corporate debtor during the moratorium period. The appeals were deemed not maintainable in their current form.

The tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because insolvency proceedings had been initiated against the corporate debtors, and a moratorium was declared. Appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professionals (IRPs) with committee approval.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a registered power of attorney from his siblings, indicating he was entitled to only a 1/8th share of the capital gains. However, due to inadequate discussion by lower authorities, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code had been initiated, and a moratorium was declared. The appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professionals.

The Tribunal held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, specifically Section 14, prohibits the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against a corporate debtor during the moratorium period. The appeals were deemed not maintainable in their current form.

The tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because insolvency proceedings had been initiated against the corporate debtors, and a moratorium was declared. Appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professionals (IRPs) with committee approval.

The tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because insolvency proceedings had been initiated against the corporate debtors, and a moratorium was declared. Appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professionals (IRPs) with committee approval.

The Tribunal held that the cross-appeals were not maintainable in their current form due to the moratorium period and the non-impleadment of the Resolution Professional. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to revive them after the moratorium period.

The tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because insolvency proceedings had been initiated against the corporate debtors, and a moratorium was declared. The appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professionals.

The Tribunal held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, specifically Section 14, prohibits the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against a corporate debtor during the moratorium period. The appeals were deemed not maintainable in their current form.

The tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because insolvency proceedings had been initiated against the corporate debtors, and a moratorium was declared. Appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professionals (IRPs) with committee approval.

The tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code had been initiated, and a moratorium was declared. Appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professionals.

The tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because insolvency proceedings had been initiated against the corporate debtors, and a moratorium was declared. Appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professionals (IRPs) with committee approval.

The tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (I&B Code) had been initiated, leading to a moratorium. Appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professionals (IRPs) with committee approval.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained by the gross receipts disclosed in the revised return, except for a peak negative cash balance of Rs 39,493. The addition of Rs 10,07,458 was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest was warranted as the assessee had sufficient own funds. However, a portion of administrative expenditure was attributable to earning exempt income.

The tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because insolvency proceedings had been initiated against the corporate debtors, and a moratorium was declared. Appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professionals (IRPs) with committee approval.

The tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because insolvency proceedings had been initiated against the corporate debtors, and a moratorium was declared. Appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professionals (IRPs) with committee approval.

The Tribunal held that the cross-appeals were not maintainable in their current form due to the moratorium period and the non-impleadment of the Resolution Professional. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to revive them after the moratorium period.

The Tribunal held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, specifically Section 14, prohibits the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against a corporate debtor during the moratorium period. The appeals were deemed not maintainable in their current form.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, allowing deduction for expenses embedded in the property but disallowing those considered personal effects. The issue of interest on housing loan was remanded for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the cross-appeals were not maintainable in their current form due to the moratorium period and the non-impleadment of the Resolution Professional. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to revive them after the moratorium period.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, allowing deduction for expenses embedded in the property but disallowing those considered personal effects. The issue of interest on housing loan was remanded for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the cross-appeals were not maintainable in their current form due to the moratorium period and the non-impleadment of the Resolution Professional. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to revive them after the moratorium period.

The Tribunal held that the cross-appeals were not maintainable in their current form due to the moratorium period and the non-impleadment of the Resolution Professional. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to revive them after the moratorium period.

The Tribunal held that the cross-appeals were not maintainable in their current form due to the moratorium period and the non-impleadment of the Resolution Professional. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to revive them after the moratorium period.

The Tribunal held that the cross-appeals were not maintainable in their current form due to the moratorium period and the non-impleadment of the Resolution Professional. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to revive them after the moratorium period.

The Tribunal held that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, specifically Section 14, prohibits the continuation of pending suits or proceedings against a corporate debtor during the moratorium period. The appeals were deemed not maintainable in their current form.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not applying Section 45(3) of the Act and in applying Section 50C for determining the full value of consideration. The Tribunal also found fault with the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to re-verify the cost of acquisition.

The tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because insolvency proceedings had been initiated against the corporate debtors, and a moratorium was declared. Appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professionals (IRPs) with committee approval.

The tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because insolvency proceedings had been initiated against the corporate debtors, and a moratorium was declared. Appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professionals (IRPs) with committee approval.

The tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because insolvency proceedings had been initiated against the corporate debtors, and a moratorium was declared. Appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professionals (IRPs) with committee approval.

The tribunal held that interest on loans used for acquiring an office property, even if under construction, should be considered for capitalization. Professional fees for a loan used for business purposes are allowable. Ad-hoc disallowances without defects in books are unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 43CA(1) provides a 5% tolerance band, and this amendment has been held to be retrospective. Since the difference was within the tolerance band, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that issues regarding Section 80IC deductions, depreciation, and Section 14A disallowance were already decided in favor of the assessee by a coordinate bench. For bogus purchases, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to disallow 12% of the purchases, following the earlier decision.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received by the assessee from Boeing should be used to reduce the cost of the aerospace project, treating it as a capital receipt. This decision was based on a previous ruling by the Tribunal on similar issues for earlier assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received by the assessee from Boeing should be used to reduce the cost of the aerospace project, treating it as a capital receipt. This decision was based on a previous ruling by the Tribunal on similar issues for earlier assessment years.

The tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because insolvency proceedings had been initiated against the corporate debtors, and a moratorium was declared. Appeals should have been filed by the Interim Resolution Professionals (IRPs) with committee approval.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESIC paid before the due date of filing the return of income was not justified, following various High Court and ITAT decisions. It also directed the AO to allow the claim for cash expenses, considering Rule 6DD and the lack of proper controversion by lower authorities.

The tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable. However, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to examine the allowability of expenditure under Section 40A(2) of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the matter required factual verification regarding the dual PANs and the credit for advance tax and TDS. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s deletion of depreciation was not tenable as the assessee had not filed its return of income within the due date and the search took place after the due date. The issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee's activities constitute 'education' under Section 2(15). Consequently, the proviso to Section 2(15) was held not applicable, and the exemption was rightly granted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's failure to appear or provide necessary documentation. However, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

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 the AO had applied his mind to the issue of Section 14A disallowance and taken a possible view, supported by High Court decisions, that no disallowance was required if no exempt income was earned. Therefore, the PCIT's revision order was set aside.

The tribunal acknowledged the appellant's settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and the lack of objection from the department. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.