ITAT Mumbai Judgments — August 2022

The Tribunal restored the Section 56(2)(viib) issue to the AO for fresh adjudication based on assessee's submissions and evidence. The interest disallowance issue was also remitted back to the AO for factual examination of the nexus between advances and funds.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that the grounds raised were covered by previous decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case and other similar cases. The Tribunal found that the assessee was eligible for the deductions and depreciation claims as per established precedents.

The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-response and, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte order. The issues were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was incorrect in dismissing the appeal as a review. The order passed by the AO to give effect to the earlier appellate order was a separate order, and the assessee had the right to appeal against it.

The Tribunal held that while the Principal Commissioner has a role in verifying the genuineness of activities and compliance with other laws, he cannot impose conditions that are not envisaged by the statute. The conditions imposed were found to be beyond the scope of his authority and thus vacated.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's accounts were required to be audited under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. For such assessees, the due date for filing the return was extended to October 31, 2019. Since the return was filed before this extended due date, the disallowance was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that bonafide mistakes made by the assessee cannot be the basis for imposing a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had adduced reasonable cause for the initial non-compliance with the notice under Section 142(1), considering the subsequent full compliance and the fact that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A. Therefore, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had adduced reasonable cause for the initial non-compliance with the notice under Section 142(1), considering the subsequent full compliance and the fact that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A. Therefore, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had adduced reasonable cause for the initial non-compliance with the notice under Section 142(1), considering the subsequent full compliance and the fact that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A. Therefore, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had adduced reasonable cause for the initial non-compliance with the notice under Section 142(1), considering the subsequent full compliance and the fact that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A. Therefore, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had adduced reasonable cause for the initial non-compliance with the notice under Section 142(1), considering the subsequent full compliance and the fact that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A. Therefore, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had adduced reasonable cause for the initial non-compliance with the notice under Section 142(1), considering the subsequent full compliance and the fact that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A. Therefore, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that while the Principal Commissioner has a role in verifying the genuineness of activities and compliance with other laws, he cannot impose conditions that are not envisaged by the statute. The conditions imposed were found to be beyond the scope of his authority and thus vacated.

The Tribunal held that the interest payment was revenue neutral as it was not claimed as an expense, and thus Chapter X provisions were not applicable. For the corporate guarantee, the Tribunal restricted the arm's length adjustment to 0.5% based on a jurisdictional High Court decision.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was duty-bound to refer the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) when the assessee objected to the stamp duty value. It also directed a re-computation of capital gains, allowing a deduction for the actual period of providing alternative accommodation to dwellers.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of natural justice, given the assessee's non-appearance.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders themselves indicated that the assessee had made submissions and that the assessments were not made ex-parte under Section 144. Therefore, the penalties levied for non-compliance were cancelled.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground regarding media relations agency fees, finding no reason to disallow the payment based on consistency with prior and subsequent years. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground regarding media relations agency fees, finding no reason to disallow the payment based on consistency with prior and subsequent years. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this issue.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders themselves indicated that the assessee had made submissions and that the assessments were not made ex-parte under Section 144. Therefore, the penalties levied for non-compliance were cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders themselves indicated that the assessee had made submissions and that the assessments were not made ex-parte under Section 144. Therefore, the penalties levied for non-compliance were cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order passed on December 7, 2018, was barred by limitation as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty order should have been passed by June 30, 2018, at the latest.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders themselves indicated that the assessee had made submissions and that the assessments were not made ex-parte under Section 144. Therefore, the penalties levied for non-compliance were cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders themselves indicated that the assessee had made submissions and that the assessments were not made ex-parte under Section 144. Therefore, the penalties levied for non-compliance were cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was duty-bound to refer the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) when the assessee objected to the stamp duty value. It also directed a re-computation of capital gains, allowing a deduction for the actual period of providing alternative accommodation to dwellers.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders themselves indicated that the assessee had made submissions and that the assessments were not made ex-parte under Section 144. Therefore, the penalties levied for non-compliance were cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries and applied his mind to the issue of cash deposits, accepting a possible view. Therefore, the PCIT's revision order, based on a differing opinion and the belief that the AO should have made an addition, was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly restricted the disallowance of expenses as the AO failed to consider the evidence furnished by the assessee. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of interest disallowance, citing commercial expediency and previous favorable decisions for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of depreciation on the helicopter was to be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. For certain other issues, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim based on previous decisions or by verifying documents.

The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee was regularly following the Completed Contract Method consistently. The Tribunal found no error in upholding this method for declaring income from the project.

The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee was regularly following the Completed Contract Method consistently. The Tribunal found no error in upholding this method for declaring income from the project.

The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee was regularly following the Completed Contract Method consistently. The Tribunal found no error in upholding this method for declaring income from the project.

The Tribunal held that market research, feasibility studies, and project models incurred for promoting an ongoing business are revenue expenditures. Consistency with previous assessment years was also considered.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had demonstrated commercial expediency for the interest-free advances, as the land acquired was used for its business operations. The advances were also found to be made from the company's own interest-free funds.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition under Section 36(1)(iii), delete the addition for bad debts, and delete the addition for transfer of goodwill. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoning for all three issues.

The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A must be based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found to support the additions, they were deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the issue of taxing interest on securities on a due basis has been consistently decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal and confirmed by the Bombay High Court.

The Tribunal held that interest expenditure incurred for acquiring shares in a subsidiary, if demonstrably for commercial expediency, is allowable. It also ruled that disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted if no exempt income is earned.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in furnishing the information due to the absence of a CFO. The penalty imposed under section 271G was therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that interest expenditure incurred for acquiring shares in a subsidiary, if demonstrably for commercial expediency, is allowable. It also ruled that disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted if no exempt income is earned.

The Tribunal held that interest expenditure incurred for acquiring shares in a subsidiary, if demonstrably for commercial expediency, is allowable. It also ruled that disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted if no exempt income is earned.

The Tribunal held that interest expenditure incurred for acquiring shares in a subsidiary, if demonstrably for commercial expediency, is allowable. It also ruled that disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted if no exempt income is earned.

The Tribunal held that interest expenditure incurred for acquiring shares in a subsidiary, if demonstrably for commercial expediency, is allowable. It also ruled that disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted if no exempt income is earned.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of depreciation on the helicopter was to be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. For certain other issues, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim based on previous decisions or by verifying documents.

The Tribunal held that exemption under Section 10(34) is available on dividend income irrespective of whether the shares were borrowed or purchased. For Section 14A disallowance, only dividend-yielding investments should be considered.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of depreciation on the helicopter was to be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. For certain other issues, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim based on previous decisions or by verifying documents.

The Tribunal restored the issues of bogus creditors, disallowance of purchases, and capital introduction to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after verifying the provided documents. The issue of Section 80C deduction was also remanded for verification.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee PF/ESI contributions was incorrect as the deposit was made before the return filing due date and the relevant explanation to Section 43B was not applicable retrospectively. For CSR expenses, the matter was remanded to the AO to verify the assessee's claim of exemption or excess spending.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of depreciation on the helicopter was to be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. For certain other issues, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim based on previous decisions or by verifying documents.