ITAT Mumbai Judgments — November 2022

The Tribunal decided that the issue of lease payments requires verification by the Assessing Officer and remanded it back for fresh adjudication. The claim for bad debt was also remanded to the Assessing Officer for examination under Section 37. The issue of tax credit was remanded for verification of the correct amount.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal on technicalities when the facts were clear. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to verify if the amount was indeed shown as exempt income and to delete the addition if confirmed.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee provided bank statements showing withdrawals, the source of the remaining cash deposited could not be fully substantiated. Therefore, the addition was restricted to the unexplained portion of the cash deposited.

The Tribunal deleted the additions made on account of alleged bogus purchases, discrepancy in stock, and labour job payments. The ground regarding the levy of tax at 60% was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that since the unreconciled amount was a miniscule part of the total turnover and the assessee had reconciled a substantial portion, no addition was warranted. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not claimed TDS credit for the unreconciled transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to deny the Section 115BAA benefit due to the non-filing of Form 10-IC before the due date. The issue regarding the applicable tax rate based on turnover was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 149(1)(c) was not permissible as the proceedings had become time-barred prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2012. The amendment was considered prospective and could not revive time-barred proceedings.

The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's submission that the income was offered in AY 2020-21 upon project completion. The issue was remanded to the AO to grant TDS credit if the sale amount was offered as income in AY 2020-21.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, allowed the assessee one more opportunity to furnish additional evidence before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider these evidences and decide all issues on merits.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment of refund and interest against outstanding demands without proper intimation to the assessee was not valid. It also held that the Assessing Officer's additional disallowance under Section 14A was not justified without recording proper satisfaction.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reasons for reopening the assessment were insufficient, as they only indicated a 'reason to suspect' rather than a 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment. Therefore, the reopening was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the addition of interest for the current year is an offshoot of the decision on the principal loan amount from a prior year. Since the appeal for the prior year was still pending, the current appeal could not be logically decided.

The Tribunal found that the TDS credit issue was not adequately discussed during scrutiny. To ensure justice, the matter was restored to the AO for verification of advances from flat purchasers and TDS deduction, with directions to grant credit as per Form 26AS.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the expenses related to construction of inventory and previously completed projects as revenue expenditure. It also confirmed that interest income on fixed deposits should be treated as business income, following established precedents.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. It reasoned that since the sales were not disputed, only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases should be taxed.

The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted as genuine, the entire purchase amount cannot be treated as non-genuine. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, aligning with High Court and Tribunal precedents.

The Tribunal held that the payments were not 'deemed dividend' as they were in the nature of commercial transactions for which the company received interest. The Tribunal relied on the principle that advances given for consideration beneficial to the company are not deemed dividends.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 because the subject matter was already pending before the CIT(A). The bar under Explanation-1 to Section 263 prevented the PCIT from revising an issue that was under appeal with the appellate authority.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were genuine as they were routed through banking channels and supported by notarized documents. The mismatch in dates between the MOU, its notarization, and the actual payment dates did not render the transaction non-genuine.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the Project Completion Method followed by the assessee is a valid method for computing income. The AO's rejection of this method without rejecting the books of accounts was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it constituted a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the assessee's appeal was allowed on this jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during a search. A third party's statement alone, without corroborating evidence found during the search, cannot be considered incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during a search. A third party's statement alone, without corroborating evidence found during the search, cannot be considered incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that the TPO incorrectly included revenue and costs from software trading (non-international transactions) in the profit level indicator calculation. It also found that the exclusion of certain comparable companies was not justified.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) for unexplained capital accretion from painting sales due to lack of documentary evidence. Other grounds were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) for unexplained capital accretion from painting sales due to lack of documentary evidence. Other grounds were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the transactions between the assessee and stockists were on a principal-to-principal basis, and therefore, discounts, bonuses, and incentives offered did not fall under the ambit of Section 194H. Provisions for interest on delayed payments were also not considered interest under Section 194A.

The Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one last opportunity to furnish additional evidence before the Assessing Officer to substantiate claims regarding deemed dividend and interest disallowance. Both issues were remanded to the AO for adjudication.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) for unexplained capital accretion from painting sales due to lack of documentary evidence. Other grounds were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that in unabated assessment years, Section 153A proceedings are restricted to incriminating material found during search. Neither the AO nor the assessee can make fresh claims not arising from the search.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue of Section 54F deduction to the AO for fresh examination, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence. The issue of self-assessment tax credit was also restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal, following its own precedent in similar cases, directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to 6% of the bogus purchases, as the corresponding sales were not disputed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it constituted a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the assessee's appeal was allowed on this jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee might not have received a proper opportunity to rebut the remand report findings before the CIT(A) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it constituted a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the assessee's appeal was allowed on this jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal held that the waiver of loan does not amount to cessation of trading liability and is not taxable under Section 41(1). It also found that Section 28(iv) was not applicable as the receipt was in cash. The principal portion of the waived loan was directed to be excluded from total income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the financial guarantee commission was in line with previous rulings in the assessee's own case. Similarly, the deletion of the Section 14A disallowance was upheld due to the Assessing Officer's failure to record proper satisfaction as required by law.

The Tribunal held that the ICAI's guidance note on calculating turnover for future and option transactions is legally valid and can be relied upon. Following this method, the assessee's turnover did not necessitate a tax audit.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a mechanical order without proper examination of facts. It held that a complete enquiry was required to unearth bogus transactions, considering surrounding circumstances and human probabilities.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a mechanical order without proper examination of facts. It held that a complete enquiry was required to unearth bogus transactions, considering surrounding circumstances and human probabilities.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it constituted a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the assessee's appeal was allowed on this jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it constituted a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the assessee's appeal was allowed on this jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal held that the transactions between the assessee and stockists were on a principal-to-principal basis, and therefore, discounts, bonuses, and incentives offered did not fall under the ambit of Section 194H. Provisions for interest on delayed payments were also not considered interest under Section 194A.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) for unexplained capital accretion from painting sales due to lack of documentary evidence. Other grounds were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) for unexplained capital accretion from painting sales due to lack of documentary evidence. Other grounds were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessments, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during a search. A third party's statement alone, without corroborating evidence found during the search, cannot be considered incriminating material.

The Tribunal held that since Shri Awadhesh Dixit accepted the Rs. 40 Lakhs as his income and stated the amount given to the assessee was for disbursement as per his instructions, the Rs. 11 Lakhs could not be considered income in the assessee's hands.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making additions under Section 153A in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, especially for unabated assessment years. Generalized external information alone does not constitute incriminating material.