ITAT Mumbai Judgments — December 2022

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal based on the CBDT circular regarding low tax effect. The circular states that no appeal should be filed by the revenue if the tax effect is below Rs. 50 lakhs, and this applies to pending cases as well.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to the annual value of property, following previous decisions. It allowed the assessee's claim regarding the calculation of deduction under Section 80G, relying on a coordinate bench ruling. The revenue's cross-objections were dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to the annual value of property, following previous decisions. It allowed the assessee's ground regarding the calculation of deduction under Section 80G, relying on a coordinate bench ruling. The revenue's cross-objections were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the TPO and Dispute Resolution Panel were incorrect in determining the ALP at 'Nil' without proper analysis. The matter was set aside to the TPO for fresh determination of ALP. Regarding disallowances, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete them if the assessee demonstrated no expenditure was claimed or if interest was not claimed as an expense.

The Tribunal held that unabsorbed depreciation or brought forward losses, whichever is less, can be reduced from book profit as per Section 115JB(iii). The fact that these losses/depreciation are not explicitly shown as a debit balance in the Profit and Loss account does not disentitle the assessee from this deduction.

The Tribunal held that the Pr.CIT's observation regarding 'Essar India' was not proper as there were no financial transactions in that scrip during the assessment year. However, for the scrip 'Shri Nath', while the AO's enquiry was lacking, the value involved was meagre, and the transaction was offered as short-term capital gain. Therefore, the revision proceedings for 'Shri Nath' were considered proper to that extent.

The Tribunal held that the partial rejection of the assessee's second valuation report by the lower authorities was not justified, especially since they accepted parts of it when WDV was Nil. The Tribunal directed the TPO/AO to consider the second valuation report and benchmark the transactions on an aggregate basis for each associated enterprise.

The Tribunal set aside the penalty order, noting that the quantum appeal had been restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The penalty order was deemed unsustainable without a concluded quantum assessment.

The Tribunal held that while the primary liability was IEL's, JSW Steel had a secondary liability as a corporate guarantor. The extent and discharge of this liability required verification. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable as there was no incriminating material found during the search that pertained to the assessment year in question. Consequently, the grounds related to capital gains, car parking, and on-money receipts were allowed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided detailed submissions and comparative data to the AO regarding software expenses. It also noted that the entire disallowance for interest on TDS default had been made by the assessee before the revision proceedings were initiated. Therefore, the PCIT's order was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim with documentary evidence, particularly regarding its contribution to the project and the fact that the project commenced before the formation of the AOP. The agreement terms indicated that the risk and reward were solely on another developer.

The Tribunal held that once a valid revised return is filed, it effaces the original return. Therefore, the AO ought to have considered the revised return before framing the assessment. The assessment order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the draft assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is invalid. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings, including the final assessment order, are void ab initio.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground regarding deletion of addition under Section 41(1) as the AO had sufficient opportunity. It partly allowed the assessee's ground on interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) and allowed the claim for TDS credit. The issue of Section 14A disallowance was restored to the CIT(A) for re-consideration, and the disallowance of handling charges was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of machinery installation before the financial year-end, including a consultant's certificate and trial run expenses. The Tribunal also noted that claiming depreciation is not a prerequisite for claiming deduction under Section 32AC(1A).

The tribunal noted that the appellant had opted for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act and had provided proof of full and final settlement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustment should be computed only in respect of international transactions with AEs, not the entire turnover. This was based on the Bombay High Court's ruling that Chapter X of the Income Tax Act pertains specifically to international transactions with AEs.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to produce the necessary order under section 120(4)(b) to justify the Addl. CIT's jurisdiction. Consequently, the notices and assessment orders were deemed without jurisdiction and set aside.

The Tribunal set aside the grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments and differences in Form 26AS to the AO for fresh verification with specific directions. The ground regarding disallowance under Section 14A was allowed, directing the AO to consider the assessee's claim of no exempt income. Initiation of penalty proceedings was dismissed as premature.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the transfer pricing adjustment. It also dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the DRP's decision to treat gains from securities as capital gains, exempt under the India-Switzerland tax treaty, following previous precedents.

The Tribunal set aside the grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments and differences in Form 26AS to the AO for fresh verification with specific directions. The ground regarding disallowance under Section 14A was allowed, directing the AO to consider the assessee's claim of no exempt income. Initiation of penalty proceedings was dismissed as premature.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the transfer pricing adjustment. It also dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the DRP's decision to treat gains from securities as capital gains, exempt under the India-Switzerland tax treaty, following previous precedents.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A for the purpose of computing book profit under Section 115JB is not permissible. It also found that the assessee's method of apportionment for composite administrative expenses was fair and scientific.

The Tribunal held that an appeal filed by an erstwhile director of a company under liquidation is not maintainable. The appeal should have been signed by the appointed liquidator.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to produce the necessary order under section 120(4)(b) to justify the Addl. CIT's jurisdiction. Consequently, the notices and assessment orders were deemed without jurisdiction and set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to produce the necessary order under section 120(4)(b) to justify the Addl. CIT's jurisdiction. Consequently, the notices and assessment orders were deemed without jurisdiction and set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to produce the necessary order under section 120(4)(b) to justify the Addl. CIT's jurisdiction. Consequently, the notices issued and assessment orders passed by the Addl. CIT were deemed without jurisdiction and were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was signed by a director who no longer had the authority to represent the company. The IRP, despite being aware, failed to take necessary action.

The Tribunal distinguished the present case from Ansal Housing Finance, stating that if flats were allotted to buyers before the year-end, the Ansal decision would not apply. For unsold flats where ownership remained with the assessee, the Ansal decision would be applicable.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was a fishing and roving inquiry, not based on sufficient material. The SEBI order did not name the assessee or their broker as beneficiaries, and the AO lacked independent material to form a belief of escaped income.

The Tribunal distinguished the present case from Ansal Housing Finance, stating that if flats were allotted to buyers before the year-end, the Ansal decision would not apply. For unsold flats where ownership remained with the assessee, the Ansal decision would be applicable.

The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption solely on the technical ground of delayed filing of Form 10B, despite the trust being registered and fulfilling other conditions, was not justified. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the claim on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should have challenged the additions made by the AO before the CIT(A) and not before the Pr. CIT under Section 263. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Pr. CIT's order and upheld it.

The Tribunal distinguished the present case from Ansal Housing Finance, stating that if flats were allotted to buyers before the year-end, the Ansal decision would not apply. For unsold flats where ownership remained with the assessee, the Ansal decision would be applicable.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection on the ground of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal quashed the penalty notice.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the CPC under section 143(1)(a)(iv) was not justified as the Tax Auditor had merely recorded facts and not suggested a disallowance. The Tax Auditor's report, in this context, did not meet the criteria for a prima facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of fines and penalties, and also allowed the assessee's ground regarding the deletion of addition for loss on sale of inventory. The revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of fines and penalties, and also allowed the assessee's ground regarding the deletion of addition for loss on sale of inventory. The revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the purchase of shares was made in AY 2006-07 in accordance with Bombay Stock Exchange settlement rules, and the payment was made by account payee cheque from explained sources. Therefore, the addition under Section 69 was deleted for both assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing financial details, bank statements, and confirmations from the lender. The AO failed to disprove the genuineness of the transactions despite independent inquiry, thus the additions and disallowances were unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing financial details, bank statements, and confirmations from the lender. The AO failed to disprove the genuineness of the transactions despite independent inquiry, thus the additions and disallowances were unjustified.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of fines and penalties, and also allowed the assessee's ground regarding the deletion of addition for loss on sale of inventory. The revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the issue of transfer pricing adjustment for guarantee commission was decided in favour of the assessee in previous years, and there was no change in facts. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal found that the AO's dissatisfaction with the assessee's computation was not based on objective satisfaction as required by law.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of fines and penalties, and also allowed the assessee's ground regarding the deletion of addition for loss on sale of inventory. The revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee society was not a cooperative bank as defined under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. It was engaged solely in extending credit facilities to its members, not public banking activities, and therefore eligible for the deduction under Section 80P.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits and record reasons for its conclusion as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of 'Motilal Oswal Investment advisors' and the inclusion of 'ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd' as comparables. The issue was restored to the AO/TPO for fresh determination of the Arms' Length Price (ALP).

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's sales were not disputed, the entire purchases could not be disallowed. The addition should be restricted to the profit embedded in such purchases.