ITAT Mumbai Judgments — October 2022

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not claimed any expenses for earning exempt income, and similar disallowances in previous years were deleted and accepted by the revenue. Applying the principle of consistency, the disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the insurance policies were indeed keyman insurance, as evidenced by a letter from LIC and the definition of keyman insurance. The disallowance by the AO was therefore incorrect.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were suspect, a 100% addition was not justified as sales were not doubted. Following its own precedents, the Tribunal reduced the estimated profit addition from 25% to 12.5%.

The Tribunal held that the CPC was not empowered to make adjustments without issuing a notice to the assessee. Filing the audit report in Form 10B during the assessment proceedings is considered sufficient compliance with Section 12A(b).

The Tribunal held that the assessee provided a satisfactory explanation for the professional fees received, which were offered to tax. Treating the same income again as deemed income under Section 68 was legally untenable. Payments made for professional charges were also found to be genuine.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim to consider only investments yielding exempt income for disallowance calculation is justified. The AO is directed to recalculate the disallowance based on this principle.

The Tribunal dismissed the AO's appeals, following the Bombay High Court's decision in the assessee's own case and similar cases. The court had held that dividend income is exempt under Section 10(34) and that negative reserves should be adjusted in actuarial valuations.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed previous decisions of coordinate benches and High Courts that supported this view.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed previous decisions of coordinate benches and High Courts that supported this view.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed previous decisions of coordinate benches and High Courts that supported this view.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the job workers were not genuine entities but name-lenders used to obtain benefits under the Group Workshed Scheme. The disallowance was restricted to the net income of these entities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee mistakenly denoted the period as AY 2011-12 for the advance tax payment made on 13.12.2011. The case was remitted back to the AO to examine additional evidence and grant credit for AY 2012-13 if the amount was not claimed in AY 2011-12.

The Tribunal dismissed the AO's appeals, following the Bombay High Court's decision in the assessee's own case and similar cases. The court had held that dividend income is exempt under Section 10(34) and that negative reserves should be adjusted in actuarial valuations.

The Tribunal held that the 1000 sq. ft. limit applies to units within the municipal limits of Mumbai, and the project's location did not qualify for the 1500 sq. ft. limit. It also confirmed the AO's finding that flower beds and terraces were part of the built-up area, leading to disqualification if the limit was exceeded.

The Tribunal held that the 1000 sq. ft. limit applies to units within the municipal limits of Mumbai, and the project's location did not qualify for the 1500 sq. ft. limit. It also confirmed the AO's finding that flower beds and terraces were part of the built-up area, leading to disqualification if the limit was exceeded.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s rejection of the assessee's reliance on a previous ITAT decision was misplaced. The AO was directed to consider only investments that yielded exempt income when computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii).

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) and Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to adopt OP/VAE as the profit level indicator (PLI) for comparison, following previous tribunal rulings. It also directed the exclusion of 'Om Logistics Ltd' as a comparable entity due to functional incomparability. The issue of TDS credit was restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the designing charges were inherently connected to the business of export of jewellery undertaken by the appellant's eligible unit. Therefore, these charges should be treated as business income and included for computing the deduction under Section 10A.

The Tribunal directed the AO to assess income for AY 1987-88 and 1988-89 based on the project percentage method, considering specific amounts of 'on money' for those years, to avoid double taxation.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11, allowing some claims while dismissing others. The Revenue's appeal for AY 2010-11 was dismissed. The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 was also partly allowed.

The Tribunal found no illegality or perversity in the deletion made by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s action in restricting the addition for commission income on fabric transactions. It also confirmed the addition for commission on share transactions, treating them as accommodation entries.

The Tribunal dismissed the AO's appeals, following the Bombay High Court's decision in the assessee's own case and similar cases. The court had held that dividend income is exempt under Section 10(34) and that negative reserves should be adjusted in actuarial valuations.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to profit recognition, following the percentage completion method, and the deletion of notional rent on unsold flats held as stock-in-trade. The addition under Section 43CA was also deleted as the relevant sales occurred before the section's applicability.

The Tribunal held that the refund granted should first be adjusted against the correct amount of interest due, and any remaining balance should be adjusted against the tax. The shortfall in refund after adjusting interest is to be considered as a shortfall of tax for computing further interest.

The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench decision in the assessee's father's case, further reduced the disallowance rate from 10% to 5%. The Tribunal found that a 5% disallowance was reasonable given the circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for relief under Section 89(1) read with Rule 21A(2) for the lumpsum ex-gratia compensation received on termination of service. This decision was based on previous similar judgments involving employees of the same company.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of business expenses and agricultural income, finding no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the expenses and the source of agricultural income.

The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. which held that Section 43B does not apply to employees' PF/ESI contributions, and the due date under Section 36(1)(va) is applicable. The appeals were remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the gain from the sale of land should be treated as Capital Gain and not business income. It also affirmed that the gain was Long Term Capital Gain, considering the MOU date as the acquisition date.

The Tribunal allowed the ground related to disallowance of interest expenditure and de-mat charges, finding merit in the assessee's contentions. However, an additional ground regarding the invalidity of reopening was dismissed as not pressed. Issues concerning set-off/carry forward of business loss and depreciation were remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal allowed the ground related to disallowance of interest expenditure and de-mat charges, finding merit in the assessee's contentions. However, an additional ground regarding the invalidity of reopening was dismissed as not pressed. Issues concerning set-off/carry forward of business loss and depreciation were remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to furnish additional evidence before the Assessing Officer (AO). The appeals were remanded back to the AO for considering the additional evidence and deciding the issue on merits.

The Tribunal remitted the issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) back to the AO for fresh adjudication. If the other party has paid taxes on the income, no disallowance should be made.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 14A, agreeing that the AO had not recorded the necessary dissatisfaction and that the disallowance was not permissible in the absence of exempt income. The Tribunal also confirmed that Rule 8D is not applicable for computing book profits.

The Tribunal found that while 'on-money' payments were evident from broker statements and seized documents, the addition of 20% was not fully justified. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to consider a 10% addition after accounting for expenses incurred in purchasing the land.

The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to furnish additional evidence before the Assessing Officer (AO). The appeals were remanded back to the AO for considering the additional evidence and deciding the issue on merits.

The Tribunal held that once the assessee has borne the withholding tax liability, it becomes part of the asset's cost, making it eligible for depreciation. The possibility of future refund of TDS by the department was considered a future contingency and not a ground to deny current depreciation claims.

The Tribunal found that while 'on-money' payments were evident from broker statements and seized documents, the addition of 20% was not fully justified. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to consider a 10% addition after accounting for expenses incurred in purchasing the land.

The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to furnish additional evidence before the Assessing Officer (AO). The appeals were remanded back to the AO for reconsideration based on the new evidence.

The tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Director was not maintainable as the Board of Directors ceased to exist upon admission into insolvency proceedings. Only the interim resolution professional could prosecute the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The fact that the loan was repaid and interest was allowed as a deduction further supported the genuineness, and the unserved notice to the lender did not invalidate the transaction.

The Tribunal held that journal entries, when made for genuine business purposes like raising funds from sister concerns or adjusting balances, constitute a recognized mode of recording transactions. In the absence of adverse findings by the AO regarding non-commercial reasons or involvement of unaccounted money, there was a reasonable cause for not complying with Section 269SS.

The Tribunal, following its previous orders on identical facts for subsequent assessment years, reduced the disallowance of expenses to 5% of the total expenses. Ground No. 2 was not pressed by the appellant.

The tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed by directors after the company was ordered for winding up. The appeal could only be prosecuted by the official liquidator.

The Tribunal allowed the ground related to disallowance of interest expenditure and de-mat charges, finding merit in the assessee's contentions. However, an additional ground regarding the invalidity of reopening was dismissed as not pressed. Issues concerning set-off/carry forward of business loss and depreciation were remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in the Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. case held that Section 43B does not apply to employees' PF/ESI contributions, and the due date under Section 36(1)(va) is applicable. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.