ITAT Mumbai Judgments — September 2022

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 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 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 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 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 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 remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after obtaining necessary information from foreign banks. This is subject to the assessee furnishing a fresh consent waiver and cooperating fully.

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 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 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.

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 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 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 rectification proceedings under Section 154 were barred by limitation as the notice was issued beyond the prescribed four-year period. Furthermore, the issues raised regarding depreciation and TDS were debatable and thus not rectifiable under Section 154.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's actions of adjusting mutual liabilities through journal entries to avoid procedural hassles and clear transactions expeditiously constituted reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty levied under Sections 271D and 271E was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's actions of adjusting mutual liabilities through journal entries to avoid procedural hassles and clear transactions expeditiously constituted reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty levied under Sections 271D and 271E was not justified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the assessee's pursuit of rectification proceedings as a reasonable cause. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the assessee's pursuit of rectification proceedings as a reasonable cause. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The ITAT held that since the order passed by the PCIT under section 263 was quashed by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal, the subsequent assessment order passed by the AO under section 143(3) read with section 263 became infructuous and unsustainable. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to produce additional evidence and the seller parties. The AO was permitted to conduct further inquiries.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was not permissible for an insurance business, following previous consistent rulings. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to produce additional evidence and the seller parties. The AO was permitted to conduct further inquiries.

The Tribunal noted that the DRP had not yet passed an order for the earlier assessment year. Therefore, to do justice, the Tribunal set aside the assessment orders and remanded all issues back to the DRP for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was not permissible for an insurance business, following previous consistent rulings. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the interest subsidy, being a capital receipt, should be excluded from the computation of book profit under Section 115JB. The Tribunal also addressed the disallowance of administrative expenses under Section 14A for book profit computation.

The Tribunal held that interest subsidy, being a capital receipt, should be excluded from computing book profit under Section 115JB. The disallowance of administrative expenses under Section 14A for the purpose of book profit was also addressed.

The Tribunal held that the interest subsidy, being a capital receipt, should be excluded from the computation of book profit under Section 115JB. The Tribunal also addressed the disallowance of administrative expenses under Section 14A for book profit computation.

The Tribunal condoned a 5-day delay in the assessee's appeal to the CIT(A), stating that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide on merits.

The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) carves out an exception for co-operative banks, not for co-operative societies earning interest from co-operative banks. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) carves out an exception for co-operative banks, not for co-operative societies earning interest from co-operative banks. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that the assessee's actions of adjusting mutual liabilities through journal entries to avoid procedural hassles and clear transactions expeditiously constituted reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty levied under Sections 271D and 271E was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the subscription charges received by ACS for access to its databases and publications do not constitute royalty income under the India-US DTAA or Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions on similar facts.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 were not in accordance with law and quashed them. The Revenue's appeals were rendered academic and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's actions of adjusting mutual liabilities through journal entries to avoid procedural hassles and clear transactions expeditiously constituted reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty levied under Sections 271D and 271E was not justified.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the Jeevan Suraksha Pension Fund. The Tribunal also partly allowed the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the assessee's additional evidence on hyper-technical grounds, violating principles of natural justice. Since the AO also passed an ex-parte order, the case was remitted back to the AO for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) conducted adequate investigation or provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee to produce documents. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings under Section 153C for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 were not in accordance with law and quashed them. The Revenue's appeals were rendered academic and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the interest subsidy, being a capital receipt, should be excluded from the computation of book profit under Section 115JB. The Tribunal also addressed the disallowance of administrative expenses under Section 14A for book profit computation.

The Tribunal held that the interest subsidy, being a capital receipt, should be excluded from the computation of book profit under Section 115JB. The Tribunal also addressed the disallowance of administrative expenses under Section 14A for book profit computation.

The Tribunal held that interest on NPA/NPI accounts should be taxed as per RBI guidelines, not strictly on accrual basis. It also ruled that investments held as stock-in-trade by the bank, and losses on revaluation thereof, are allowable as deduction. The issue of broken period interest was also decided in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the sales tax subsidy/incentive received by the assessee is a capital receipt, not chargeable to tax. Consequently, it should also be excluded when computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Act.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, stating that the CIT(A) took a hyper-technical view. The Tribunal held that pursuing a rectification petition does not debar an assessee from filing an appeal against the original assessment order.

The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted as genuine, the entire purchase amount cannot be treated as non-genuine. Following High Court and co-ordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal directed that only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases should be added to the income.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner erred in invoking Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view after examining the facts and documents. The twin conditions of the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue were not satisfied.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, treating the sales tax subsidy as a capital receipt. It also directed that this subsidy should be excluded when computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the subscription charges received by ACS for access to its databases and publications do not constitute royalty income under the India-US DTAA or Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions on similar facts for earlier assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT is not empowered to grant conditional registration under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act when the application is made under a specific clause that does not permit such conditions. The conditions imposed by the PCIT were therefore not sustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the mere issuance of a cheque without actual debit from the bank account and credit to the recipient's account did not constitute a valid loan. The confirmation of the receivable balance implied the amount was paid, likely in cash and unrecorded.