ITAT Mumbai Judgments — September 2022

The Tribunal held that the Section 153C assessment was invalid because no incriminating material related to AY 2008-09 was found or relied upon. Furthermore, the assessment for AY 2008-09 was unabated at the time of issuing the Section 153C notice, making the proceedings without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the inclusion/exclusion of comparables. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the allotment letter, along with substantial payments made before registration, fulfilled the conditions of the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b). Therefore, the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement should be considered, and the addition made by the AO was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits belonged to the members and were wrongly added as the assessee's undisclosed income. It also ruled that Section 80AC, requiring timely return filing for deductions, was not applicable to AY 2017-18.

The Tribunal held that investments made in prior financial years (FY 2007-08 to 2008-09) were beyond the jurisdiction of the current assessment year. It also found that the amounts related to property increment and cash deposits were covered by the declared income and cash withdrawals.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's casual approach but, to be just and fair, restored the matter to the AO. The AO was directed to ensure proper delivery of notices and the assessee was directed to cooperate and provide explanations and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee trust is a family trust in the form of AOP/BOI and is eligible for basic exemption and slab benefits. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-determine the tax liability accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned. It also deleted ad-hoc disallowances of expenses, the addition of profit on sale of fixed assets, and disallowed late deposit of PF contributions. The issue of interest-free advances was remanded to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that if interest-free advances to sister concerns are less than the aggregate of own funds and interest-free loans taken, no disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) is warranted. However, factual verification of these amounts was required.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that when the AO accepts a decision in one year, it generally cannot be challenged in subsequent years. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow set-off of brought-forward capital losses against the current year's capital gains after due verification.

The Tribunal held that the Section 153C assessment was invalid because no incriminating material related to AY 2008-09 was found or relied upon. Furthermore, the assessment for AY 2008-09 was unabated at the time of issuing the Section 153C notice, making the proceedings without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the enhanced cost paid by the assessee was a commercial expediency and a business cost, and that the original cost was correctly paid as per the agreements, including construction of 50% of the area for M/s. Maitri Associates. The Tribunal also noted that these costs were capitalized and not claimed as deduction in the year under appeal.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under Section 68 was not sustainable as the CIT(A) had upheld the addition under Section 56(2)(viib). The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation and a valuation report to justify the share premium.

The Tribunal held that for charitable trusts, the term 'applied' in Section 11(1)(a) does not necessarily mean 'spent' and includes necessary provisions made as per statutory requirements. Therefore, the provision for gratuity should be considered as applied income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s finding about the non-furnishing of the condonation petition was perverse and that the CIT(A) should have waited for the outcome of the petition. Considering the technical nature of the breach and the assessee's profile, the Tribunal found no wilful defiance.

The Tribunal held that for charitable trusts, the term 'applied' in Section 11(1)(a) does not necessarily mean 'spent' and includes necessary provisions made as per statutory requirements. Therefore, the provision for gratuity should be considered as applied income.

The Tribunal held that entrance fees and contributions towards infrastructure are capital receipts, following its own prior decisions and the Bombay High Court's ruling. It also held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if no exempt income is earned.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had received a full and final settlement order under the Vivad Se Vishwaas Act, 2020. Therefore, the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal was allowed.

For unabated assessment years, additions were deleted as they were not based on incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessment years, the appeals were remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that entrance fees and contributions towards infrastructure are capital receipts, following its own prior decisions and the Bombay High Court's ruling. It also held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if no exempt income is earned.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under section 148 was void ab initio because the AO initiated it when the time limit for issuing a notice under section 143(2) had not expired. Consequently, the assessment order for AY 2015-16 was quashed.

The Tribunal decided that IHC is part of income from ship operations in international traffic and thus covered by the India-France DTAA, following previous rulings. The issue of FTS taxability was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, following a coordinate bench's decision. The dismissal was based on the moratorium period under the IBC preventing continuation of proceedings and the lack of permission from the NCLT or authorization from the IRP.

The Tribunal found that while the Assessing Officer had not explicitly asked for all the documents, the assessee's inability to provide crucial information about the share transaction and the company raised doubts about its genuineness. The CIT(A) had erred in allowing the claim without sufficient substantiation.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made adequate inquiries during the assessment and that the PCIT failed to demonstrate why the gain or the cost of shares was erroneous. Therefore, the revision order was quashed.

For unabated assessment years, additions were deleted as they were not based on incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessment years, the appeals were remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's case falls under the exception clause of Explanation to Section 73 of the Income Tax Act, as its gross total income mainly comprised income from other sources. Therefore, the loss on shares and derivatives could not be treated as speculative loss.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for filing departmental appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under section 148 was void ab initio because the AO initiated it when the time limit for issuing a notice under section 143(2) had not expired. Consequently, the assessment order for AY 2015-16 was quashed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal summarily without proper adjudication and without recording reasons as required by Section 250(6). Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot summarily dismiss an appeal without adjudicating on merits, even if the assessee fails to appear. The CIT(A) is required to pass a speaking order as per Section 250(6) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the NCLT's approval of the resolution plan extinguished all prior liabilities, including those of government/statutory authorities. Therefore, the PCIT's notice under Section 263 was non-est and quashed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal summarily without proper adjudication and without recording reasons as required by Section 250(6). Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that while the capital gains were rightly assessed as income from other sources due to the suspicious nature of the transactions and lack of evidence of genuine dealing, the additions for unexplained investment were not justified as there was no movement of funds from the assessee for share purchases.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal summarily without proper adjudication and without recording reasons as required by Section 250(6). Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The tribunal noted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that while the capital gains were rightly assessed as income from other sources due to the suspicious nature of the transactions and lack of evidence of genuine dealing, the additions for unexplained investment were not justified as there was no movement of funds from the assessee for share purchases.

For unabated assessment years, additions were deleted as they were not based on incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessment years, the appeals were remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

For unabated assessment years, additions were deleted as they were not based on incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessment years, the appeals were remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are separate from quantum assessment and dropping the penalty by the AO was a plausible view. The PCIT's revisional action was deemed erroneous as the AO had taken a sustainable view, and the assessee had not filed inaccurate particulars.

For unabated assessment years, additions were deleted as they were not based on incriminating material found during the search. For abated assessment years, the appeals were remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that entrance fees and contributions towards infrastructure are capital receipts, following its own prior decisions and the Bombay High Court's ruling. It also held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if no exempt income is earned.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not clear regarding the consideration of the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the interest was paid within the stipulated period and the discount was a legitimate business expense. The AO failed to provide evidence to rebut the assessee's claims.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. The reason for withdrawal was a subsequent clarification by the CBDT regarding conditions in Form 10AC, making the original conditions in the registration order unwarranted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that since the order passed under Section 263 was set aside, the subsequent assessment order based on it could not survive. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. The reason for withdrawal was a subsequent clarification by the CBDT regarding conditions in Form 10AC, making the original conditions in the registration order unwarranted.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. The reason for withdrawal was a subsequent clarification by the CBDT regarding conditions in Form 10AC, making the original conditions in the registration order unwarranted.

The Tribunal held that franchise fees earned in the course of business are eligible for set-off against brought forward business losses, irrespective of the specific tax rate applicable to such income. The nature of income as business profit is the determining factor for set-off.