ITAT Mumbai Judgments — August 2022

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had made observations based on incorrect facts and assumptions, and that the assessee had presented sufficient documentation and case laws to support its claim.

The Tribunal held that since the assessments were unabated and no incriminating material was found during the search, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making additions for capital gains/losses and disallowances under Section 14A. The generalized external information from the investigation wing was not considered sufficient incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that since the assessments were unabated and no incriminating material was found during the search, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making additions for capital gains/losses and disallowances under Section 14A. The generalized external information from the investigation wing was not considered sufficient incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that additions made on a protective basis cannot be substantively added in the hands of the assessee when the same was already added in the hands of another person. Furthermore, enhancement of income by the CIT(A) was found to be unsustainable due to a violation of Section 251(2) of the Act for not issuing a show cause notice.

The Tribunal held that since the assessments were unabated and no incriminating material was found during the search, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making additions for capital gains/losses and disallowances under Section 14A. The generalized external information from the investigation wing was not considered sufficient incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that additions made on a protective basis cannot be substantively added in the hands of the assessee when the same was already added in the hands of another person. Furthermore, enhancement of income by the CIT(A) was found to be unsustainable due to a violation of Section 251(2) of the Act for not issuing a show cause notice.

The Tribunal observed that while the CIT(A) issued notices, the assessee failed to respond, and the issues were not adjudicated on merits. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal observed that while the CIT(A) issued notices, the assessee failed to respond, and the issues were not adjudicated on merits. Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that additions made on a protective basis cannot be substantively added in the hands of the assessee when the same was already added in the hands of another person. Furthermore, enhancement of income by the CIT(A) was found to be unsustainable due to a violation of Section 251(2) of the Act for not issuing a show cause notice.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because no addition was ultimately made by the AO for the issue that formed the basis of reopening. Therefore, the AO's belief that income had escaped assessment was not substantiated.

The Tribunal held that a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Income-Tax Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings can be raised at any stage, even if not raised earlier. Such a jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by a remand order.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of ₹450 lakhs under Section 68, finding that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions. The disallowance under Section 14A, as restricted by the CIT(A), was also confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the assessee company was undergoing insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and a moratorium had been declared. The appeals should have been filed by the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not conduct a proper inquiry before admitting additional evidence and deleting additions. The assessee's conduct of not cooperating with the AO and filing revised accounts late was also noted.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It held that the foreign travel expenditure incurred by the assessee was revenue in nature and had a direct nexus with its business, following previous decisions. The Tribunal also found no perversity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the comparables.

The Tribunal held that examining expenses was within the scope of reassessment. However, the PCIT was not entirely correct in demanding full capitalization of expenses. The AO had not applied his mind to the allocation of costs between sold and unsold flats.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the assessee company was undergoing insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and a moratorium had been declared. The appeals should have been filed by the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP).

The Tribunal held that refunds determined after the due date of advance tax payment cannot be adjusted against that shortfall. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow adjustment of the AY 2008-09 refund, which was determined prior to the relevant date.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer was justified in estimating profit on bogus purchases, the rate of 25% was not substantiated. It directed the Assessing Officer to apply the assessee's declared gross profit rate on genuine purchases to estimate the profit element on the impugned purchases.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not conduct a proper inquiry before admitting additional evidence and deleting additions. The assessee's conduct of not cooperating with the AO and filing revised accounts late was also noted.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the assessee company was undergoing insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and a moratorium had been declared. The appeals should have been filed by the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the godown sale resulted in long-term capital gains, as it was treated as an investment and not a business asset. The sale of rights was also correctly treated as capital gains. However, the issue of interest cost claimed as acquisition cost was remanded for re-computation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that technical considerations are immaterial when substantial justice is at stake. The assessee's failure to file Form 10CCB electronically was due to a bonafide belief and human error, not malafide intention.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not conduct a proper inquiry before admitting additional evidence and deleting additions. The assessee's conduct of not cooperating with the AO and filing revised accounts late was also noted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the commission income to 0.15% of the sale transaction, finding that the AO had not substantiated the higher estimation. The Tribunal directed the AO to recalculate accordingly.

The Tribunal held that advertisement and marketing expenses are allowable business expenditures under Section 37, even if no income is earned in the current year. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the 'on-money' addition to 35% based on a Settlement Commission order, as it was not stayed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the surrendered land was used for agricultural purposes or that its acquisition was compulsory, thus not qualifying for exemption under Section 10(37). The charging of short-term capital gain on the sale of TDR was found to be valid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the surrendered land was used for agricultural purposes or that its acquisition was compulsory, thus not qualifying for exemption under Section 10(37). The charging of short-term capital gain on the sale of TDR was found to be valid.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and did not decide the issue based on the assessee's submissions regarding CAM charges being a contract service. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and did not decide the issue based on the assessee's submissions regarding CAM charges being a contract service. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the surrendered land was used for agricultural purposes or that its acquisition was compulsory, thus not qualifying for exemption under Section 10(37). The charging of short-term capital gain on the sale of TDR was found to be valid.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the assessee company was undergoing insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and a moratorium had been declared. The appeals should have been filed by the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP).

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the assessee company was undergoing insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and a moratorium had been declared. The appeals should have been filed by the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP).

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions require incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessments, this requirement does not apply. The issue of bogus purchases was remanded for fresh adjudication due to discrepancies in vendor addresses.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided all issues comprehensively and had made cryptic findings. The Tribunal noted that the AO was directed to redo the assessment afresh, but it was unclear how the AO had proceeded. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A) had not determined crucial issues like the applicability of Section 45(2) and the adjustment of business loss against capital gains.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee was directed to explain the delay before the CIT(A) and present its case properly.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee was directed to explain the delay before the CIT(A) and present its case properly.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided all issues comprehensively and had made cryptic findings. The Tribunal noted that the AO was directed to redo the assessment afresh, but it was unclear how the AO had proceeded. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A) had not determined crucial issues like the applicability of Section 45(2) and the adjustment of business loss against capital gains.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments with any other cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). A cooperative bank, being a cooperative society, falls within this ambit.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments with any other cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). A cooperative bank, being a cooperative society, falls within this provision.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the assessee company was undergoing insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and a moratorium had been declared. The appeals should have been filed by the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP).

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, which was below the threshold specified in the CBDT circular. Both the assessee and the Revenue conceded to this fact.

The Tribunal held that the addition should be restricted to the extent of gross profit on the alleged bogus purchases, following the Bombay High Court's decision in M/s. Mohommad Haji Adam & Company. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the gross profit calculations.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty as per CBDT Circular No. 25/2015, which states that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted when tax is computed under Section 115JB and the normal tax payable is less than the MAT tax, for assessment years prior to 2016-17.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the assessee company was undergoing insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and a moratorium had been declared. The appeals should have been filed by the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP).

The Tribunal set aside the issue of royalty disallowance and the addition on account of AIR mismatch to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. It also directed the deletion of interest charged under Section 234A as the return was filed within the due date.

The Tribunal held that the foreign travel expenses were incurred for business purposes and allowed the assessee's claim. Regarding the capital gains, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the additional ground and remanded the issue back for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the assessee company was undergoing insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and a moratorium had been declared. The appeals should have been filed by the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP).

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the assessee company was undergoing insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and a moratorium had been declared. The appeals should have been filed by the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP).

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current format because the assessee company was undergoing insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and a moratorium had been declared. The appeals should have been filed by the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP).