ITAT Mumbai Judgments — October 2022

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the deposits were made from cash withdrawals but failed to provide supporting evidence. As a last opportunity, the appeal was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to furnish bank and cash account statements.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation and interest expenses, and the ad hoc disallowance of administrative expenses, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s orders. However, the issue of interest under Section 234A was remanded for fresh adjudication.

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 assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is void ab initio. The amalgamation resulted in the cessation of the erstwhile company's identity, making subsequent assessment proceedings invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation and interest expenses, and the ad hoc disallowance of administrative expenses, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s orders. However, the issue of interest under Section 234A was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as being barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as being barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as being barred by limitation.

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 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's revisionary action was unjustified as the issues raised were already examined and adjudicated by the AO in previous assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found that the PCIT exercised revisionary jurisdiction in a mechanical and cavalier manner, ignoring the assessee's explanations and the AO's verification.

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 assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors. The explanations provided were not satisfactory or supported by evidence.

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.

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 held that the reliance on the Totgar's case was misplaced as it did not specifically deal with Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal further observed that a co-operative bank is a co-operative society, and interest earned by a co-operative society from investments in another co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that the reliance on the Totgar's case was misplaced as it did not specifically deal with Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal further observed that a co-operative bank is a co-operative society, and interest earned by a co-operative society from investments in another co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal noted that similar issues in earlier assessment years were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification. Following the precedent of its coordinate benches, the Tribunal also remitted the current appeal back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while the appellant was entitled to TDS credit in principle, the Revenue should have an opportunity to verify the receipts and corresponding payments. The TDS credit for SBI was allowed as the income was offered to tax.

The Tribunal held that the reliance on the Totgar's case was misplaced as it did not specifically deal with Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal further observed that a co-operative bank is a co-operative society, and interest earned by a co-operative society from investments in another co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that the same income cannot be assessed in the hands of two assessees, one on a substantive basis and another on a protective basis. Since the substantive additions were upheld, the protective additions were correctly deleted.

The Tribunal held that withdrawing interest under Section 154 based on the AO's determination of delay attributable to the assessee was incorrect. Such determination of delay and exclusion period requires a decision by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, which was absent.

The Tribunal found that the First Appellate Authority had not decided the issue on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the considerations for corporate guarantees are distinct from bank guarantees. Relying on the Bombay High Court judgment in Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd., it confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to accept 0.5% as the arm's length price for the guarantee commission.

The Tribunal held that the considerations for a corporate guarantee are distinct from a bank guarantee. Relying on the Bombay High Court judgment in Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd., it was found that 0.5% commission for corporate guarantee was at Arm's Length Price.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the business loss claim was not correct and should not be allowed to be carried forward. It also upheld the direction to recompute disallowances under Rule 8D(2)(ii) considering interest expenses, as the assessee failed to provide contrary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in passing the rectification order under Section 154 as the issue of delay attributable to the assessee and the period of exclusion for interest under Section 244A requires a decision by the Commissioner or Chief Commissioner, which was not done. Therefore, the AO could not decide this on his own under Section 154.

The Tribunal held that the reliance on the Totgar's case was misplaced as it did not specifically deal with Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal further observed that a co-operative bank is a co-operative society, and interest earned by a co-operative society from investments in another co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that for unabated/completed assessments, additions can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. For other cases, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made under Section 68 where the assessee had discharged their onus and the CIT(A) had made due inquiries confirming the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(C) cannot be levied on income assessed on an estimated basis. Since the addition was made on an estimated profit element of bogus purchases, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as withdrawn based on an incorrect assumption about the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not maintainable, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case. The dismissal was based on the moratorium period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which prohibits the continuation of pending proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the Director of Income-tax were covered in favour of the assessee on merit. It concluded that the Assessing Officer's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, thus setting aside the revision order.

The Tribunal held that the AO had properly examined the disallowance under Section 14A during the assessment proceedings and had verified the assessee's working. The Pr. CIT failed to demonstrate how the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not made sufficient inquiry to controvert the factual details submitted by the assessee. Relying on various judicial precedents, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its onus regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged her initial onus by proving the identity and creditworthiness of the trust and the genuineness of the transaction. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide evidence for services rendered by M/s. Jitnat Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., making the claim for professional fees unsustainable. The reopening of assessment was also found to be valid despite procedural arguments.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of disallowance of expenses to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to substantiate the nexus of expenses with business income. The addition made under Section 14A was deleted as the investments were funded by interest-free own funds.

The Tribunal held that the rectification order passed by the DRP was valid and not time-barred. It also found that the AO's assessment order was erroneous as it did not give effect to the rectification order. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the AO for necessary rectifications.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the amount of dividend income.

The Tribunal held that the Consultancy Practice (CP) division and Global Innovation Centre (GIC) division should be benchmarked separately. This decision was based on previous orders in the assessee's own case and subsequent acceptance by the revenue authorities for other assessment years.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on the vehicle is allowable, following a previous decision where the same vehicle was allowed depreciation for the preceding assessment year. The Tribunal found the assessee to be the beneficial owner, despite not being the legal owner.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments (like AY 2015-16), additions can only be made if incriminating material was found during the search. Since no such material was found for AY 2015-16, the additions were deleted. For AY 2012-13, the issue of bogus long-term capital gains on share sales was examined.

The Tribunal held that for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB), the recognition of the R&D facility by the prescribed authority is the primary condition. In the pre-amended period, the AO could not curtail expenses if the facility was approved, and the disallowance of Rs. 1,87,96,989/- was unjustified.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not maintainable, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case. This was due to the moratorium period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which prohibits the continuation of pending proceedings.

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments (unabated), additions can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. Since no such material was found for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17, the additions made by the AO were not justified.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not carry on business activities after the SEBI ban, expenses incurred to maintain its corporate status and legal expenses are allowable. The issue of interest income assessment was remanded to the AO for fresh examination.