ITAT Mumbai Judgments — August 2022

The Tribunal held that software expenditure is revenue in nature and allowed the full deduction. For the Section 80GGB deduction, the matter was remanded to the AO to verify the donation based on bank statements.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the CPC and confirmed by the CIT(A) was incorrect. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B was prospective and applicable from AY 2022-23.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's submissions on GP ratios and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, reduced the addition from 12.5% to 7.5% of the non-genuine purchases. This modification was made applicable only to the current assessment year.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which had restricted the addition to 1% of the alleged bogus purchases, finding it to be a reasoned order. The assessee failed to provide any material to challenge the appellate authority's decision.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated assessment years on account of unsecured loans, interest, and notional commission were not backed by any incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessment years, the additions were set aside to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 143(1) was not justified as the contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return, following jurisdictional High Court precedents. The tax auditor's report was not considered decisive for disallowance in this context.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated assessment years were not supported by any incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessment years, the additions were set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated assessment years were not supported by any incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessment years, the additions were set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective. Since the assessee deposited the PF contribution before the due date of filing the return of income for the relevant assessment year, the disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have accepted the manually filed appeal, considering the transition period and the assessee's lack of awareness. The appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty under Section 271DA, finding that the assessee had good and sufficient reasons for the contravention. It also upheld the deletion of additions related to denial of exemption under Section 11, as the trust's registration was restored by a prior ITAT order.

The Tribunal found the assessee's contentions realistic and granted an opportunity to substantiate claims before the AO. The AO was directed to examine deductions under sections 80C and 80D and allow advance tax credit.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under section 143(1) was not sustainable. It followed a co-ordinate bench decision which stated that contributions deposited before the due date of filing the return under section 139(1) are deductible.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated assessment years without incriminating material found during the search are not sustainable. For abated assessment years, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated assessment years were not supported by any incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessment years, the additions were set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated assessment years were not supported by any incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessment years, the additions were set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A without reference to any incriminating material found during the search are not sustainable for unabated assessment years. For abated assessment years, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that only the profit element embedded in unproved purchases can be taxed, not the entire amount. The CIT(A)'s partial relief was deemed acceptable.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated assessment years were not supported by any incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessment years, the additions were set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated assessment years were not supported by any incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessment years, the additions were set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that only the profit element embedded in unproved purchases can be taxed, not the entire amount. The CIT(A)'s partial relief was deemed acceptable.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal because the time limit for passing the assessment order, following the revision order, had expired. The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated assessment years were not sustainable as they were not backed by any incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessment years, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A without reference to any incriminating material found during the search are not sustainable for unabated assessment years. For abated assessment years, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessment years, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that software expenditure is revenue in nature and allowed the full deduction. For the Section 80GGB deduction, the matter was remanded to the AO to verify the donation based on bank statements.

The Tribunal held that since the revision order, which was the subject of rectification, was already quashed, the present appeal had become infructuous. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to PF/ESI paid after the due date is not eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(va). This is an incorrect claim apparent from the return, justifying the adjustment under section 143(1).

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessment years, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI paid after the due date under the relevant enactment is not eligible for deduction. This is an incorrect claim apparent from the return and thus liable for adjustment under Section 143(1).

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A without reference to any incriminating material found during the search are not sustainable for unabated assessment years. For abated assessment years, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that only the profit element embedded in unproved purchases can be taxed, not the entire amount. The CIT(A)'s restriction of disallowance to 12.5% was found to be reasonable and accepted by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A without reference to any incriminating material found during the search are not sustainable for unabated assessment years. For abated assessment years, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated assessment years on account of unsecured loans, interest, and notional commission were not backed by any incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessment years, the additions were set aside to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated assessment years were not sustainable as they were not backed by any incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessment years, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A without reference to any incriminating material found during the search are not sustainable for unabated assessment years. For abated assessment years, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's submissions regarding the quantification of income and the sources of interest were not satisfactory. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of whether the interest income was solely from cooperative banks registered under the Cooperative Societies Act.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty. The tribunal found that the penalty notice issued by the AO was invalid as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, and this defect vitiated the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated assessment years were not sustainable as they were not backed by any incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessment years, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated assessment years were not sustainable as they were not backed by any incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessment years, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were related to the assessee's business activities and directed the AO to treat them as business gross receipts/turnover and apply the presumptive taxation provisions of Section 44AD, determining income at 8%.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated assessment years were not sustainable as they were not backed by any incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessment years, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not conducted sufficient inquiries regarding the ESOP and ISOP expenses. Therefore, the assessment order was considered erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest, warranting further examination.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessment years, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated assessment years were not sustainable as they were not backed by any incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessment years, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated assessment years were not supported by any incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessment years, the additions were set aside and remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessment years, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that additions made in unabated assessment years were not sustainable as they were not backed by any incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessment years, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's order, passed on November 1, 2019, was beyond the prescribed 60-day period prior to the expiry of the limitation for passing the assessment order. Therefore, the TPO's order was quashed as being barred by limitation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases should be added. The AO had not disputed the corresponding sales, and the CIT(A) had relied on the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year.