ITAT Mumbai Judgments — August 2022

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

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2007-08, deleting disallowances related to interest expenditure and depreciation, and allowing the addition on account of change in accounting method. The appeal for AY 2008-09 was also partly allowed, with the deletion of interest expenditure and depreciation disallowances, and the addition for change in accounting method being deleted.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2007-08, deleting disallowances related to interest expenditure and depreciation, and allowing the addition on account of change in accounting method. The appeal for AY 2008-09 was also partly allowed, with the deletion of interest expenditure and depreciation disallowances, and the addition for change in accounting method being deleted.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2007-08, deleting disallowances related to interest expenditure and depreciation, and allowing the addition on account of change in accounting method. The appeal for AY 2008-09 was also partly allowed, with the deletion of interest expenditure and depreciation disallowances, and the addition for change in accounting method being deleted.

The Tribunal held that the discount on ESOPs represents an ascertained liability and is an allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The revenue's appeals on this issue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly applied the gross profit rate of 12.5% on bogus purchases, following the Bombay High Court decision in PCIT vs. Md. Haji Adam & Co.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal as not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circular. The Tribunal also noted that the information was not from an external source as claimed by the revenue, and the CIT(A) had followed relevant High Court decisions.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable due to the non-joinder of a necessary party and the absence of the assessee's representative. The appeal was also rendered defective due to non-payment of tax on returned income.

The Tribunal held that income from letting out the hall, even if considered an activity, was not an activity for profit, especially since the trust's primary object was education. Following precedent, the Tribunal found the income incidental to the trust's charitable purpose.

The Tribunal held that the discount on ESOPs represents an ascertained liability and is an allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The revenue's appeals on this issue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that merely because a liability is barred by limitation does not automatically make it income under Section 41(1). Following the Bombay High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Batliboi Environmental Engineering Ltd., the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the discount on ESOPs represents an ascertained liability and is an allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The revenue's appeals on this issue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the discount on ESOPs represents an ascertained liability and is an allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The revenue's appeals on this issue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the discount on ESOPs represents an ascertained liability and is an allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The revenue's appeals on this issue were dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2007-08, deleting disallowances related to interest expenditure and depreciation, and allowing the addition on account of change in accounting method. The appeal for AY 2008-09 was also partly allowed, with the deletion of interest expenditure and depreciation disallowances, and the addition for change in accounting method being deleted.

The Tribunal allowed the exclusion of 10 companies from the list of comparables, finding them functionally different or having other disqualifying factors. The Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer was directed to determine the ALP using the remaining 15 comparable companies.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the deletion of additions for most sundry creditors based on ledger copies and the assessee's subsequent payments. The addition for M/s Venkateshwara Marketing was sustained.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2007-08, deleting disallowances related to interest expenditure and depreciation, and allowing the addition on account of change in accounting method. The appeal for AY 2008-09 was also partly allowed, with the deletion of interest expenditure and depreciation disallowances, and the addition for change in accounting method being deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction, as payments were made through banking channels and the share premium was justified by the company's asset value. Therefore, Section 68 was not applicable.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2007-08, deleting disallowances related to interest expenditure and depreciation, and allowing the addition on account of change in accounting method. The appeal for AY 2008-09 was also partly allowed, with the deletion of interest expenditure and depreciation disallowances, and the addition for change in accounting method being deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove it was a cooperative credit society transacting only with members. Therefore, the issue of eligibility for deduction under Section 80P needed to be revisited by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2007-08, deleting disallowances related to interest expenditure and depreciation, and allowing the addition on account of change in accounting method. The appeal for AY 2008-09 was also partly allowed, with the deletion of interest expenditure and depreciation disallowances, and the addition for change in accounting method being deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty. It found that the assessee had made fair disclosures in its financial statements and there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The taxability of such receipts was considered debatable, and every addition in the assessment order does not automatically attract a penalty.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as the Assessing Officer's initial premise (failure to file return) was incorrect and not properly addressed. The Tribunal also noted the assessee had discharged its initial onus regarding the loan transaction.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the protective addition for unaccounted investment, as substantive additions were confirmed in the hands of other companies. For the commission addition, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order to verify figures before computing the protective addition.

The Tribunal held that for abated assessment years, the return filed under Section 153A replaces the original return, allowing the assessee to make fresh claims. The CBDT circular clarifying such income as business income was also considered binding.

The Tribunal held that for abated assessment years under Section 153A, the return filed replaces the original return, allowing the assessee to make fresh or modified claims. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow the reclassification of income based on a binding circular was upheld.

The Tribunal directed that the disallowance under Section 14A be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned. It also held that additions based solely on AIR information without further inquiry are not sustainable. For corporate guarantee fees, the Tribunal directed that 0.5% be considered the Arm's Length Price.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2007-08, deleting disallowances related to interest expenditure and depreciation, and allowing the addition on account of change in accounting method. The appeal for AY 2008-09 was also partly allowed, with the deletion of interest expenditure and depreciation disallowances, and the addition for change in accounting method being deleted.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2007-08, deleting disallowances related to interest expenditure and depreciation, and allowing the addition on account of change in accounting method. The appeal for AY 2008-09 was also partly allowed, with the deletion of interest expenditure and depreciation disallowances, and the addition for change in accounting method being deleted.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2007-08, deleting disallowances related to interest expenditure and depreciation, and allowing the addition on account of change in accounting method. The appeal for AY 2008-09 was also partly allowed, with the deletion of interest expenditure and depreciation disallowances, and the addition for change in accounting method being deleted.

The Tribunal held that the discount on ESOPs represents an ascertained liability and is an allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The revenue's appeals on this issue were dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2007-08, deleting disallowances related to interest expenditure and depreciation, and allowing the addition on account of change in accounting method. The appeal for AY 2008-09 was also partly allowed, with the deletion of interest expenditure and depreciation disallowances, and the addition for change in accounting method being deleted.

The Tribunal held that the discount on ESOPs represents an ascertained liability and is an allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The revenue's appeals on this issue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposited by the assessee into his own bank account was unexplained. However, the cash deposited into the firm's account and subsequently transferred to the assessee was not to be taxed in the assessee's hands, as the firm is a separate entity and the transaction should have been examined in its hands.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2007-08, deleting disallowances related to interest expenditure and depreciation, and allowing the addition on account of change in accounting method. The appeal for AY 2008-09 was also partly allowed, with the deletion of interest expenditure and depreciation disallowances, and the addition for change in accounting method being deleted.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2007-08, deleting disallowances related to interest expenditure and depreciation, and allowing the addition on account of change in accounting method. The appeal for AY 2008-09 was also partly allowed, with the deletion of interest expenditure and depreciation disallowances, and the addition for change in accounting method being deleted.

The Tribunal held that the discount on ESOPs represents an ascertained liability and is an allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The revenue's appeals on this issue were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence to substantiate the source of the cash deposit despite multiple opportunities.

The Tribunal directed that the disallowance under Section 14A be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned. It also held that additions based solely on AIR information without further inquiry are not sustainable. For corporate guarantee fees, the Tribunal directed that 0.5% be considered the Arm's Length Price.

The Tribunal held that the discount on ESOPs represents an ascertained liability and is an allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The revenue's appeals on this issue were dismissed.

The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate that the cash deposits were related to their business transactions. The case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the documents to be produced by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The monetary limit for appeals before the Tribunal was enhanced to Rs. 50,00,000/-.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-appearance and lack of documentary evidence, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to verify if the addition was 'Income from other sources' or 'Other business income'.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2007-08, deleting disallowances related to interest expenditure and depreciation, and allowing the addition on account of change in accounting method. The appeal for AY 2008-09 was also partly allowed, with the deletion of interest expenditure and depreciation disallowances, and the addition for change in accounting method being deleted.