ITAT Mumbai Judgments — August 2022

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 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 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 AO had not recorded the necessary objective satisfaction to invoke Rule 8D and that the assessee's voluntary disallowance was justified. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the amount voluntarily disallowed by the assessee.

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 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 information from the pen drive, without corroborating evidence like date and mode of receipt of 'on money', was insufficient to prove the payment. The Tribunal found that the assessee's declared consideration was substantially higher than the stamp duty value, supporting the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments with another cooperative society (including a cooperative bank) is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The insertion of Section 80P(4) does not negate this entitlement.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable. The PCIT issued a notice regarding Section 14A disallowance but concluded by directing the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 270A, which was considered a misuse of revisionary powers. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had made specific inquiries regarding the Section 14A disallowance and accepted the assessee's explanation, taking a plausible view.

The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in imposing a mark-up on expense reimbursements when there was a one-to-one correlation and no profit element involved. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decision for an earlier assessment year in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that the rental income should be assessed as business income, following its own previous decisions in identical cases for the assessee. Consequently, the disallowance of expenses claimed against rental income was directed to be allowed.

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 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 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 AO had not recorded the necessary objective satisfaction to invoke Rule 8D and that the assessee's voluntary disallowance was justified. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the amount voluntarily disallowed by the assessee.

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 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) did not adequately record whether notices issued to the assessee were actually served. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is not empowered to grant registration under Section 12AB subject to conditions. The conditions imposed were not sustainable in law, as there is an inbuilt mechanism to examine compliance during assessment proceedings.

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 since the substantive addition on account of unexplained cash credit was upheld in the case of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain and deleted in the hands of the assessee to avoid double taxation, the assessee's appeal had become infructuous. The conditional revival of the addition was considered premature.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee with adequate opportunity to present its case and make submissions. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not recorded the necessary objective satisfaction to invoke Rule 8D and that the assessee's voluntary disallowance was justified. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the amount voluntarily disallowed by the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate crucial jurisdictional and natural justice grounds. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on these grounds.

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 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 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 PCIT's order, finding that the AO's assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT was justified in exercising revisionary powers as the AO failed to conduct necessary inquiries on crucial issues.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction, relying on previous decisions of coordinate benches that allowed similar claims for interest earned from cooperative banks. The assessee was considered a cooperative society eligible for the deduction.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. As the appeal was withdrawn, the Tribunal did not adjudicate on the delay in filing the appeal.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain companies (Balmer Lawrie and Company Ltd, South India Corporation Ltd, and Om Logistics Limited) as comparables for benchmarking logistics services. The issue regarding the comparability of Gordon Woodroffe Logistics Limited was remanded for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal also directed the AO to grant credit for TDS and re-adjudicate interest under section 244A.

The Tribunal held that the issue of taxability of interest income had been decided in favour of the assessee by a coordinate bench in prior years. Regarding commission on guarantees, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s method of adding 10% lacked basis and directed a re-computation based on comparable international transactions.

The Tribunal held that the issue of taxability of interest income had been decided in favour of the assessee by a coordinate bench in prior years. Regarding commission on guarantees, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s method of adding 10% lacked basis and directed a re-computation based on comparable international transactions.

The Tribunal held that the amounts transferred to the Tribal Development Fund and Watershed Development Fund were not the assessee's own money but were administered as per RBI/GOI directions, constituting a diversion of income by overriding title. The Tribunal also confirmed the disallowance of Education Cess as an expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the issue of taxability of interest income had been decided in favour of the assessee by a coordinate bench in prior years. Regarding commission on guarantees, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s method of adding 10% lacked basis and directed a re-computation based on comparable international transactions.

The Tribunal held that the issue of taxability of interest income had been decided in favour of the assessee by a coordinate bench in prior years. Regarding commission on guarantees, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s method of adding 10% lacked basis and directed a re-computation based on comparable international transactions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with one last opportunity to present its case on merits, considering the grounds raised regarding Section 68 and the nature of the transaction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as non-maintainable based on the doctrine of merger, as the revision petition under Section 264 was not decided on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after condoning the delay.

The Tribunal restored all the additional grounds, including those related to depreciation on goodwill and software expenses, to the file of the AO for examination. The AO is to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). This is because cooperative banks are still considered cooperative societies under the Act.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). This is because cooperative banks are still considered cooperative societies under the Act.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have accepted the manually filed appeals, especially since multiple hearings had already taken place. The dismissal based on the filing method was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly followed these precedents and appreciated the detailed nature of the expenses.

The Tribunal found the assessee's reason for non-compliance to be reasonable and, in the interest of natural justice, decided to provide another opportunity. The CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits.

The Tribunal held that penalties on estimated additions, especially when the quantum addition itself has been reduced based on an ad-hoc GP rate, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal relied on its own previous orders where similar penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the assessee to carry forward deficits. This was based on various judicial precedents, including decisions from the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, which consistently allowed such carry forwards for charitable trusts.

The Tribunal found that the NFAC erroneously considered the appeal of the assessee under the VSV Scheme when the application was for another company and a different appeal. Therefore, the matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question. Therefore, employees' contributions to PF and ESI remitted before the due date of filing the income tax return are deductible.