ITAT Mumbai Judgments — December 2022

The tribunal allowed the appeal regarding transfer pricing adjustment for Nagda Plant by directing re-computation using internal TNMM. The additions for unexplained expenditure and undisclosed income were remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after admitting additional evidence.

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. Therefore, Section 80P(4) was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not have followed the previous year's assessment without considering the current year's financial position. It also noted that interest was charged on the loan, and the disallowance was not based on proper reasons.

The tribunal held that the appeals were a continuation of pending suits against the corporate debtor, which is prohibited during the moratorium period. The appeals were also not maintainable in their current form as the Interim Resolution Professional was not impleaded.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) without corroborating evidence. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing depreciation at 60% on editing equipment, following previous orders. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the markup on interest charged on loans to AEs, finding no infirmity in the order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing depreciation at 60% on editing equipment, following previous orders. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the markup on interest charged on loans to AEs, finding no infirmity in the order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing depreciation at 60% on editing equipment, following previous orders. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reduce the markup on interest charged on loans to AEs, finding no infirmity in the order.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) confirming the validity of reassessment and the additions made on account of share premium and the disallowance under Section 14A. The assessee failed to appear or file submissions before the Tribunal.

The tribunal dismissed the ground regarding the lack of show cause notice. For clearing and forwarding/festival expenses, the issue was remanded to the AO for de novo adjudication. For transportation, general, travelling, and telephone expenses, the disallowance was restricted to 5%.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the necessary satisfaction as mandated by Section 14A(2) before invoking Rule 8D. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction for expenditure incurred on Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP).

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground as it was a legal issue not requiring new facts. The assessment order was passed on an entity that had ceased to exist due to amalgamation, making it void ab initio.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the scheme under which the incentive was granted. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) to determine if the incentive was for setting up the industry (capital) or augmenting working capital (revenue).

The tribunal held that the appeals were a continuation of pending suits against the corporate debtor, which is prohibited during the moratorium period. The appeals were also not maintainable in their current form as the Interim Resolution Professional was not impleaded.

The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) failed to conduct a thorough inquiry into the evidence produced by the assessee regarding agricultural income. The estimation by the AO was based on general statistics rather than specific evidence, and the rejection of the assessee's evidence was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the necessary satisfaction as mandated by Section 14A(2) before invoking Rule 8D. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction for expenditure incurred on Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP).

The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to restrict the transfer pricing adjustment by following a coordinate bench's decision for a prior assessment year. The disallowance under Section 14A was dismissed as not pressed. The disallowance for free samples was deleted, but the disallowance for conference expenses was upheld based on a Supreme Court decision.

The Tribunal upheld the initiation of proceedings under Section 147, the validity of the assessment despite no specific objection on Section 143(2) notice, and the additions/disallowances made by the lower authorities. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s orders.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the assessee's grounds of appeal. This was due to the lack of documentary evidence and specific arguments presented by the assessee to dispute the additions and disallowances made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record the necessary satisfaction as mandated by Section 14A(2) before invoking Rule 8D. The Tribunal also allowed the deduction for expenditure incurred on Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP).

The Tribunal held that interest income derived by a cooperative society from its investments with another cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The cooperative bank in this case was also a cooperative society.

The Tribunal held that interest income derived by a co-operative society from its investments with any other co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The fact that the investment was with a co-operative bank, which is also a co-operative society, makes the deduction allowable.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) correctly deleted the additions made under Section 68. It also noted a violation of the principles of natural justice by the AO in not providing seized material or cross-examination opportunities.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) correctly deleted the additions made under Section 68. It also noted a violation of the principles of natural justice by the AO in not providing seized material or cross-examination opportunities.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) correctly deleted the additions made under Section 68. It also noted a violation of the principles of natural justice by the AO in not providing seized material or cross-examination opportunities.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments with another cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal followed a view favorable to the assessee in case of conflicting High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) correctly deleted the additions made under Section 68. It also noted a violation of the principles of natural justice by the AO in not providing seized material or cross-examination opportunities.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) correctly deleted the additions made under Section 68. It also noted a violation of the principles of natural justice by the AO in not providing seized material or cross-examination opportunities.

The Tribunal directed the AO/TPO to restrict the transfer pricing adjustment by following a coordinate bench's decision for a prior assessment year. The disallowance under Section 14A was dismissed as not pressed. The disallowance for free samples was deleted, but the disallowance for conference expenses was upheld based on a Supreme Court decision.

The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under section 263, finding the Assessing Officer's assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to lack of proper inquiry into client code modification transactions. The Tribunal directed a fresh inquiry on this issue and also upheld the PCIT's direction to examine Section 14A.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided all available information, including bank statements, invoices, TDS details, and PAN numbers. Merely because two out of seventeen parties did not respond to Section 133(6) notices, the transactions with well-known hotel chains could not be deemed non-genuine.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the assessee has a PE in India has been consistently decided in favour of the assessee in preceding assessment years by coordinate benches. Following these precedents, the Tribunal allowed the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it was passed without proper verification of the agricultural income claim. The provided invoices and land records were found to be insufficient.

The Tribunal held that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it was passed without proper verification of the agricultural income claim. The provided invoices and land records were found to be insufficient.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not properly examine the details filed by the assessee, particularly for the period from FY 2017-18 onwards. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the application for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to submit all supporting documents.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were on a principal-to-principal basis, with vendors manufacturing goods using their own materials and selling them under their own brands. The assessee had no title to the goods until delivery, and the agreements did not constitute works contracts.

The Tribunal held that the dividend income from IDRs is not taxable in India based on the India-Mauritius DTAA, following a coordinate bench's decision. However, the challenge to penalty proceedings was dismissed as premature.

The Tribunal held that the CPC's rejection of the assessee's reply was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as it did not provide reasons. The Tribunal also clarified that orders under Section 143(1) are appealable.

The Tribunal held that the set-off of long-term capital loss from STT-paid transactions against capital gains from the sale of a flat is not permissible under Section 70(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 67 is a procedural defect and should not deny the claim of foreign tax credit, especially when it is beneficial to the assessee as per the India-Sri Lanka tax treaty. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the FTC claim.

The Tribunal held that the lease rentals were not royalty, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own cases for preceding assessment years. The payments were for the lease of alloys, not for the use of intellectual property.

The Tribunal held that the WIP was valued at sales price, which already included profit. Therefore, estimating further gross profit resulted in double addition. The Tribunal also noted that the Sales Tax/VAT assessment order accepted the assessee's books.

The Tribunal held that the services provided did not satisfy the 'make available' clause of Article 12 of the India-Singapore DTAA, as no technical knowledge or skill was transferred to the Indian AE. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that identical issues had been decided in favour of the assessee in preceding assessment years. Following these precedents, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order regarding the allocation of Head Office expenses.

The Tribunal held that the CPC's rejection of the assessee's reply was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as it did not provide reasons. The Tribunal also clarified that orders under Section 143(1) are appealable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not properly examine the details filed by the assessee, particularly for the period from FY 2017-18 onwards. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the application for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to submit all supporting documents.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case. This was done in the interest of justice, as the assessee was represented before the ITAT.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 67, as per Rule 128(9), does not preclude the assessee from claiming foreign tax credit. The Tribunal followed coordinate bench decisions stating that Rules cannot override the Act and filing Form 67 is directory, not mandatory.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's action under Section 263 was justified as the assessee failed to provide details of sundry creditors and advances, and the AO had not properly inquired into the matter. Therefore, the PCIT's order setting aside the AO's assessment was upheld.