ITAT Mumbai Judgments — October 2022

The Tribunal held that the assessee's valuation of land as on 01.04.1981, as supported by registered valuers, should be accepted, following previous consistent decisions. The Tribunal also upheld the use of the percentage completion method for recognizing revenue from construction projects, dismissing the Revenue's grounds.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's valuation of land as on 01.04.1981, as supported by registered valuers, should be accepted, following previous consistent decisions. The Tribunal also upheld the use of the percentage completion method for recognizing revenue from construction projects, dismissing the Revenue's grounds.

The Tribunal held that the interest expense disallowance was not justified as the funds were not borrowed for making interest-free advances. Regarding the SEZ deduction, the Tribunal ruled that provisions of the SEZ Act override other acts, allowing deduction for trading activities.

The Tribunal held that the interest expense disallowance was not justified as the funds were not borrowed for making interest-free advances. Regarding the SEZ deduction, the Tribunal ruled that provisions of the SEZ Act override other acts, allowing deduction for trading activities.

The Tribunal held that the cash receipts represented genuine sales offered for taxation by the assessee. The Tribunal found sufficient stock to effect the sales and no defects in the stock or sales records, thus upholding the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) did not have the power to impose conditions on their own while granting approval under Section 80G, other than those stipulated in the law. Therefore, the imposed conditions were struck down.

The Tribunal noted that the Vivad se Vishwas scheme was reportedly opted for a different transaction (with a resident vendor). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s dismissal based on the scheme was questionable. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the AO an opportunity to cross-examine the broker's representatives and by not sharing information obtained via summons under section 131. The principles of natural justice were violated, necessitating a de novo adjudication.

The CIT(A) quashed the reopening of the assessment because the basis for it (the assessment order for AY 2006-07) had been decided in favor of the assessee by a coordinate bench. Therefore, the reopening could not survive.

The Tribunal held that notional rental income from unsold units held as stock-in-trade cannot be taxed as income from house property prior to the amendment effective from 01.04.2018. However, the AO's estimation of 8.5% was not justified, and municipal ratable value should be used.

The Tribunal held that an appeal against an order passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act is not maintainable before the ITAT. Such orders can be appealed to the Secretary, CBDT, or challenged via a writ petition.

The Tribunal held that the issue was identical to a previous assessment year where the Tribunal had ruled in favour of the assessee. Following the precedent, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It restored the issue of TDS disallowance to the AO for fresh consideration, finding merit in the assessee's contention regarding recipients not having taxable income. The disallowance for electricity charges was deleted, while other disallowances were sustained.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) did not have the power to impose conditions on their own while granting approval under Section 80G, other than those stipulated in the law. Therefore, the conditions imposed were struck down.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the AO an opportunity to cross-examine the broker's representatives and by not sharing information obtained via summons under section 131. The principles of natural justice were violated, necessitating a de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the AO an opportunity to cross-examine the broker's representatives and by not sharing information obtained via summons under section 131. The principles of natural justice were violated, necessitating a de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred on the summit was revenue in nature, not capital, as it did not create any intangible asset or enduring benefit. The nature of the expenditure, as evidenced by its details and prior allowance in other assessment years, supported its classification as revenue.

The Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. This was because the assessee claimed that notices of hearing were not served, preventing them from presenting their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. This was because the assessee claimed that notices of hearing were not served, preventing them from presenting their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to a defective show cause notice that did not specify the exact charge against the assessee. Therefore, the penalty levied was bad in law and liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as it was solely based on the retracted statement of Shri Tukaram Patil, without allowing cross-examination. The excel sheet itself had infirmities and did not directly implicate the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to a defective show cause notice that did not specify the exact charge against the assessee. Therefore, the penalty levied was bad in law and liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that no arm's length price adjustments could be made for the delay in realization of sale proceeds. It also directed the deletion of transfer pricing adjustments on account of outstanding receivables from associated enterprises.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was vitiated because it failed to specify the charge (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) by not striking off the inapplicable limb. This defect renders the penalty bad in law.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was subsequently deleted in the assessee's own appeal, the penalty must also be deleted. The Tribunal applied the legal maxim 'Sublato Fundamento credit opus' (when the foundation is removed, the superstructure falls).

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding MTM loss, following a jurisdictional High Court decision that such losses in foreign exchange are business activities. For Section 14A, the AO was directed to consider only investments yielding exempt income.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the admission of additional evidence and the deletion of additions for share application money. However, the issue of unsecured loans was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination of repayment.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in K.C. Builders. It held that if the assessment or reassessment order on which penalty is levied is set aside, the penalty cannot stand independently.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the unsecured loan transaction. Relying on the statement of the lender's director and the Supreme Court's decision in NRA Iron and Steel Pvt Ltd, the addition was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not an 'eligible assessee' as per Section 144C(15)(b) because the Transfer Pricing Officer made no variation in income. Consequently, the draft assessment order and the final assessment order were quashed as they were not in accordance with the Act.

The Tribunal held that since the NCLT's order approving the Resolution Plan is binding on the department, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending. The impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the NCLT's order approving the Resolution Plan is binding on the department. Therefore, it was deemed unnecessary to keep the appeals pending.

The Tribunal held that interest and loan processing fees incurred on a stock-in-progress (flat under construction) must be capitalized and added to the cost of the inventory. These expenses are not allowable as revenue expenditure until the possession of the finished product is taken.

The Tribunal held that interest and loan processing fees incurred on a stock-in-progress (flat under construction) must be capitalized and added to the cost of the inventory. These expenses are not allowable as revenue expenditure until the possession of the finished product is taken.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs. 1,45,912/- as it related to F&O transactions and not exempt income. It also deleted the disallowance of interest expenses, noting the assessee had sufficient surplus funds. The entire disallowance under Section 14A was deleted due to the Assessing Officer's failure to record satisfaction.

The Tribunal held that interest and loan processing fees incurred on a stock-in-progress (flat under construction) must be capitalized and added to the cost of the inventory. These expenses are not allowable as revenue expenditure until the possession of the finished product is taken.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had followed the due procedure by forwarding the additional evidence to the Assessing Officer for comments, and since no objection was raised, the Revenue's appeal lacked merit. The Tribunal also found no contrary material to dispute the addition of undisclosed cash balance, thus dismissing the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had followed the due procedure by forwarding the additional evidence to the Assessing Officer for comments, and since no objection was raised, the Revenue's appeal lacked merit. The Tribunal also found no contrary material to dispute the addition of undisclosed cash balance, thus dismissing the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the subscription income for standard online market research database reports is not in the nature of royalty. Following previous decisions in the assessee's own case, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the sale proceeds of software products are in the nature of business profits, not royalties, following the Supreme Court's decision in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. The AO was directed to verify the filing date of the return for levying interest under Section 234A.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiry based on the details furnished by the assessee. Since the AO took a plausible view and no disallowance under Section 14A was warranted, the invocation of Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding that the basement area was used for commercial parking and there was no evidence of its sale. The Revenue failed to rebut the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding that the basement area was used for commercial parking and there was no evidence of its sale. The Revenue failed to rebut the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct a one-to-one matching of interest-free loans against available funds and did not counter the assessee's legal submissions. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deemed bad in law.

The Tribunal restored the issue of interest disallowance to the AO for fresh assessment, finding that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to present its case. For disallowance under Section 14A, the Tribunal held that no disallowance is warranted if no exempt income is earned, allowing the assessee's ground. The disallowance of O&M expenses was also set aside and restored to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the date of transfer for the purpose of determining the holding period should be considered based on the date of part performance, specifically when possession was taken or handed over, as per Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the transaction qualified as long-term capital gains.

The Tribunal held that since additions based on the same debit note were deleted in the hands of the payers (VAIPL and VML), no consequent additions could be made in the hands of the payee (assessee). The Tribunal found no cogent material to support the receipt of excessive rent by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since additions based on the same debit note were deleted in the hands of the payers (VAIPL and VML), no consequent additions could be made in the hands of the payee (assessee). The Tribunal found no cogent material to support the receipt of excessive rent by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since additions based on the same debit note were deleted in the hands of the payers (VAIPL and VML), no consequent additions could be made in the hands of the payee (assessee). The Tribunal found no cogent material to support the receipt of excessive rent by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since additions based on the same debit note were deleted in the hands of the payers (VAIPL and VML), no consequent additions could be made in the hands of the payee (assessee). The Tribunal found no cogent material to support the receipt of excessive rent by the assessee.