ITAT Mumbai Judgments — September 2022

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s estimation of net profit at 8% on alleged unsupported project expenses was justified, following a co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case. Both the Revenue's and the assessee's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s estimation of net profit at 8% on alleged unsupported project expenses was justified, following a co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case. Both the Revenue's and the assessee's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society from investments in a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Totgars Cooperative Sales Society Ltd. was found to be distinguishable on facts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including TEV study reports and external comparables, to justify the purchase price of the FFS machines. The Revenue failed to provide cogent evidence to prove the price was inflated.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s estimation of net profit at 8% on alleged unsupported project expenses was justified, following a co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case. Both the Revenue's and the assessee's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s estimation of net profit at 8% on alleged unsupported project expenses was justified, following a co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case. Both the Revenue's and the assessee's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision for a sister concern in the same industry, directed the Assessing Officer to disallow 5% of the expenses as reasonable. This was due to the difficulty in cross-verifying cash expenses and the nature of the business.

The Tribunal held that since the company was non-existent and the Assessing Officer was aware of this, there was no reason to levy a penalty for non-compliance with notices. The penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to be heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on a jurisdictional High Court decision, the Tribunal quashed the penalty notice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s estimation of net profit at 8% on alleged unsupported project expenses was justified, following a co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case. Both the Revenue's and the assessee's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the gift was of jewellery (in kind) and not cash or cheque, thus Section 68 was not applicable. The Tribunal also accepted the grandmother's explanation of receiving the jewellery as 'Streedhan' and her agricultural income being exempt, leading to the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly verified the sufficient cause for the delay before confirming the penalty. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause, and remitted the issue of penalty levy back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s estimation of net profit at 8% on alleged unsupported project expenses was justified, following a co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case. Both the Revenue's and the assessee's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly verified the sufficient cause for the delay before confirming the penalty. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause, and remitted the issue of penalty levy back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision for a sister concern in the same industry, directed the Assessing Officer to disallow 5% of the expenses as reasonable. This was due to the difficulty in cross-verifying cash expenses and the nature of the business.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear and cooperate with the appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal held that a cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from investments in other cooperative societies or cooperative banks. The Supreme Court decision relied upon by the lower authorities was distinguished as not being applicable to this specific issue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from investments in other cooperative societies or cooperative banks. The Supreme Court decision in Totgars Cooperative Sales Society Ltd. was distinguished as not applicable to this specific issue.

The Tribunal held that a cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from investments in other cooperative societies or cooperative banks. The judgments relied upon by the lower authorities were found to be distinguishable on facts.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC is not justified if paid before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1). The amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021, were considered prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2016-17. It directed the AO to disallow Rs 77,778 under Section 14A for both normal and book profit computations. The Tribunal also directed factual verification for TDS credit and unabsorbed depreciation, and disallowed interest under Section 234A.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly verified the sufficient cause for the delay before confirming the penalty. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause, and remitted the issue of penalty levy back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s estimation of net profit at 8% on alleged unsupported project expenses was justified, following a co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case. Both the Revenue's and the assessee's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without considering the adjournment requests. In the interest of justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made thorough inquiries regarding the disputed expenses and was satisfied with the assessee's explanations. Therefore, the PCIT was not justified in invoking revision jurisdiction under Section 263.

The Tribunal found that the authorities below had rejected the assessee's claim for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme without proper verification or seeking necessary information. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that exemption under Section 11 can be denied only to the extent of the violation of Section 13. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to determine the specific portion of income affected by the violation, and also to examine if such income is taxable in the hands of the specified persons.

The Tribunal found that the authorities below had rejected the assessee's claim for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme without proper verification or seeking necessary information. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that exemption under Section 11 can be denied only to the extent of the violation of Section 13. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to determine the specific portion of income affected by the violation, and also to examine if such income is taxable in the hands of the specified persons.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2016-17. It directed the AO to disallow Rs 77,778 under Section 14A for both normal and book profit computations. The Tribunal also directed factual verification for TDS credit and unabsorbed depreciation, and disallowed interest under Section 234A.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271G cannot be levied as the assessee had not received the notices due to them being sent to an incorrect address, and later made due compliance. There was a reasonable cause for non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that the provision for foreseeable loss, made in accordance with Accounting Standard-7, is an ascertained liability and therefore an allowable expenditure. The PCIT failed to demonstrate that this item warranted addition back to book profits under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly verified the sufficient cause for the delay before confirming the penalty. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause, and remitted the issue of penalty levy back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not passed a reasoned order and failed to address the assessee's contentions. The CIT(A)'s reasoning for confirming the disallowance was found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal held that exemption under Section 11 can be denied only to the extent of the violation of Section 13. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to determine the specific portion of income affected by the violation, and also to examine if such income is taxable in the hands of the specified persons.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear and cooperate with the appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear and cooperate with the appellate proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the AO made a mechanical disallowance under Rule 8D without recording the necessary satisfaction regarding the assessee's accounts and the appropriateness of the offered disallowance. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A). It reasoned that Section 68 is not applicable when the assessee has disclosed the sum as income (voluntary contributions) and provided supporting donation receipts, especially for a religious trust where anonymous donations are not taxed under Section 115BBC(2)(b).

The Tribunal held that a cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from investments held with a cooperative bank. The Tribunal distinguished previous Supreme Court and High Court rulings as not directly applicable to this specific issue.

The Tribunal held that once tax is deducted at source, the assessee cannot be asked to pay the tax again, irrespective of whether the deductor deposited it with the government. The bar under Section 205 of the Income Tax Act applies.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cash availability from withdrawals from partnership firms and personal accounts to explain the cash deposits. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to conduct necessary inquiries and did not consider the binding decision of the jurisdictional Bombay High Court. The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient own funds to cover the interest-free advances, making the revision order unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the provision for free service coupons was made on a scientific empirical basis, considering past trends and occurrence rates. Since this provision was part of the sales obligation, similar to warranty provisions accepted by the CIT(A), it should be allowed as an expenditure.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in deleting the disallowance and directing the AO to grant exemption under Section 11. The AO had erred in not considering the details filed by the assessee prior to the assessment deadline.

The Tribunal held that exemption under Section 11 can be denied only to the extent of the violation of Section 13. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to determine the specific portion of income affected by the violation, and also to examine if such income is taxable in the hands of the specified persons.

The Tribunal found that the authorities below had rejected the assessee's claim for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme without proper verification or seeking necessary information. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in other cooperative societies or cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Totgars Cooperative Sales Society Ltd. was found to be distinguishable on facts.

The Tribunal remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after obtaining necessary information from foreign banks, subject to the assessee providing a fresh consent waiver and cooperating fully.