ITAT Mumbai Judgments — October 2022

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the number of employees for Section 80-IB deduction needed re-examination. For the Revenue's appeals concerning education cess and dividend distribution tax, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the number of employees for Section 80-IB deduction needed re-examination. For the Revenue's appeals concerning education cess and dividend distribution tax, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the number of employees for Section 80-IB deduction needed re-examination. For the Revenue's appeals concerning education cess and dividend distribution tax, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest income accrued on deposits in a foreign bank account cannot be considered as 'deemed to accrue or arise in India' under Section 9(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, such income cannot be taxed in India in the hands of non-residents.

The ITAT held that the sales transactions were genuine and corroborated by evidence, thus the additions made by the AO on account of alleged bogus sales were not sustainable. The Tribunal also found that the addition on account of cash seized was made in the hands of other parties and therefore, could not be sustained against the assessee.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without assigning any reasons or dealing with the grounds raised. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect of the penalty amount was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for appeals before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that for certain parties where principal recovery was doubtful, not charging interest was justified. For other parties, the interest-free advances were covered by the assessee's own funds, making the disallowance unsustainable.

The tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to deduction for delayed remittance of employee's contribution to provident fund. This decision followed the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs CIT.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not obliged to chase the deductor for compliance and should be allowed the full TDS credit in the relevant year. Defaults by the deductor should be addressed by the department, not at the cost of the assessee.

The ITAT found no merit in the CIT(A)'s order as it was based on a misappreciation of facts. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the merits of the appeal, the ITAT set aside the order and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that Section 11(6) is intended to prevent claiming both the purchase of an asset as application of income and depreciation on it. Since the assessee had not claimed the purchase of assets as application of income but only depreciation, there was no double deduction.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee, citing Supreme Court and Bombay High Court judgments. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the exempt income.

The Tribunal held that interest income accrued on deposits in a foreign bank account cannot be considered as 'deemed to accrue or arise in India' under Section 9(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, such income cannot be taxed in India in the hands of non-residents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) citing sufficient cause due to the consultant's negligence. The Tribunal further held that the CIT(A) erred by not deciding the appeal on merits and remitted the case back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the Assessing Officer failed to provide the necessary material and evidence to the assessee and did not grant an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the intra-group services and the need/benefit of using trademarks and patents. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that interest income accrued on deposits in a foreign bank account cannot be considered as 'deemed to accrue or arise in India' under Section 9(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, such income cannot be taxed in India in the hands of non-residents.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had consistently offered interest income on a receipt basis and had provided disclosures in Schedule TDS-2 explaining the carry forward of TDS for income not yet offered. Therefore, the addition made under Section 143(1) was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause for the assessee's lack of knowledge of the rejection of their rectification application. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was liable for audit under Rule 24(8) of the LLP Act, 2008, due to partner's contribution exceeding Rs. 25 lakhs. Consequently, the due date for filing the return was September 30, 2018, and the return filed on September 26, 2018, was within the due date. Therefore, the disallowance of the carried forward business loss was incorrect.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the evidence placed on record by the assessee, including bank statements and confirmations. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest income accrued on deposits in a foreign bank account cannot be considered as 'deemed to accrue or arise in India' under Section 9(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, such income cannot be taxed in India in the hands of non-residents.

The Tribunal held that interest income accrued on deposits in a foreign bank account cannot be considered as 'deemed to accrue or arise in India' under Section 9(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, such income cannot be taxed in India in the hands of non-residents.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was justified in not charging interest on loans to certain parties due to their poor financial condition and doubtful recovery of principal. For other parties, the interest-free advances were covered by the assessee's own funds.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) does not have the power to impose conditions on their own while granting approval under Section 80G, beyond what is stipulated in the law. Therefore, the conditions imposed were struck down.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had made additions based on estimation without properly examining the evidence submitted by the assessee. The AO was directed to re-examine the issue threadbare after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) does not have the power to impose conditions on their own while granting approval under Section 80G, beyond what is stipulated in the law. Therefore, the conditions imposed were struck down.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the number of employees for Section 80-IB deduction needed re-examination. For the Revenue's appeals concerning education cess and dividend distribution tax, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the number of employees for Section 80-IB deduction needed re-examination. For the Revenue's appeals concerning education cess and dividend distribution tax, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the number of employees for Section 80-IB deduction needed re-examination. For the Revenue's appeals concerning education cess and dividend distribution tax, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the number of employees for Section 80-IB deduction needed re-examination. For the Revenue's appeals concerning education cess and dividend distribution tax, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the number of employees for Section 80-IB deduction needed re-examination. For the Revenue's appeals concerning education cess and dividend distribution tax, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the number of employees for Section 80-IB deduction needed re-examination. For the Revenue's appeals concerning education cess and dividend distribution tax, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the guarantee commission was income from business as it was a corporate guarantee for a subsidiary in the same line of business. The expenses were also allowed as business expenditure.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding it just and fair. It agreed that proportionate disallowance of interest and loan processing fees from WIP was justified based on the facts and judicial pronouncements, balancing commercial expediency and accounting norms.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the number of employees for Section 80-IB deduction needed re-examination. For the Revenue's appeals concerning education cess and dividend distribution tax, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the number of employees for Section 80-IB deduction needed re-examination. For the Revenue's appeals concerning education cess and dividend distribution tax, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the number of employees for Section 80-IB deduction needed re-examination. For the Revenue's appeals concerning education cess and dividend distribution tax, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the deduction claimed under Section 35(1)(ii) was not allowable as the institution's registration was cancelled retrospectively and it was found to be involved in bogus donation schemes.

The Tribunal held that director sitting fees were not subject to TDS under Section 194J before the amendment effective July 1, 2012. It also found that outsourcing expenses and network charges did not constitute professional or technical services as defined under Section 194J.

The Tribunal heard the Departmental Representative and allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to establish any personal use of the sports car by the assessee company. Given that the company is a distinct legal entity and the expenditure was within the terms of service for directors, the disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the number of employees for Section 80-IB deduction needed re-examination. For the Revenue's appeals concerning education cess and dividend distribution tax, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without assigning any reasons or dealing with the grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside for de novo adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT had exercised revisionary jurisdiction in a mechanical manner, ignoring the fact that the issues raised were already examined by the AO. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided explanations for the mismatches, which were not considered by the PCIT.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT had exercised revisionary jurisdiction in a mechanical manner, ignoring the fact that the issues raised were already examined by the AO. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided explanations for the mismatches, which were not considered by the PCIT.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation on plant and machinery, interest expenses, and administrative expenses due to lack of supporting evidence and findings of bogus purchases. However, the issue of interest under Section 234A was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation on plant and machinery, interest expenses, and administrative expenses due to lack of supporting evidence and findings of bogus purchases. However, the issue of interest under Section 234A was remanded for fresh adjudication.