ITAT Mumbai Judgments — February 2023

The Tribunal, relying on a coordinate bench decision in the case of State Bank of India vs DCIT, held that provisions made for standard assets are also considered provisions for bad and doubtful debts as envisaged by Section 36(1)(viia). Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction on provisions made for standard assets.

The Tribunal, relying on a coordinate bench decision in the case of State Bank of India vs DCIT, held that provisions made for standard assets are also considered provisions for bad and doubtful debts as envisaged by Section 36(1)(viia). Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction on provisions made for standard assets.

The Tribunal, relying on a coordinate bench decision in the case of State Bank of India vs DCIT, held that provisions made for standard assets are also considered provisions for bad and doubtful debts as envisaged by Section 36(1)(viia). Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction on provisions made for standard assets.

The Tribunal held that additions/disallowances under Section 153C require incriminating material pertaining to the assessment year in question found during a search. Since the relied-upon information was not linked to the search and lacked year-specific incriminating material, the grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal, relying on a coordinate bench decision in the case of State Bank of India vs DCIT, held that provisions made for standard assets are also considered provisions for bad and doubtful debts as envisaged by Section 36(1)(viia). Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction on provisions made for standard assets.

The Tribunal, relying on a coordinate bench decision in the case of State Bank of India vs DCIT, held that provisions made for standard assets are also considered provisions for bad and doubtful debts as envisaged by Section 36(1)(viia). Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction on provisions made for standard assets.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they were filed by an unauthorized person. However, liberty was granted to the new management to reinstate the appeals if they deemed it necessary and authorized.

The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue that since the NCLT order extinguished the penalty demand, there was no grievance left for the assessee to pursue the appeal. Therefore, the appeal did not require adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they were filed by an unauthorized person. However, liberty was granted to the new management to reinstate the appeals if they deemed it necessary and authorized.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's retraction of the statement, finding it lacked credibility and was not made at the earliest opportunity. However, it agreed that mere mobilization of money does not constitute taxable income.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they were filed by an unauthorized person. However, liberty was granted to the new management to reinstate the appeals if they deemed it necessary and authorized.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they were filed by an unauthorized person. However, liberty was granted to the new management to reinstate the appeals if they deemed it necessary and authorized.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as they were filed by an unauthorized person. However, liberty was granted to the new management to reinstate the appeals if they deemed it necessary and authorized.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made detailed inquiries and applied his mind before accepting the genuineness of loans. Therefore, the PCIT's invocation of revisional powers under Section 263 was not justified as the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the lease rental income received by the assessee on leasing of alloys cannot be treated as royalty. This decision was based on previous rulings by coordinate benches in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.

The Tribunal restored the transfer pricing issues concerning capital and finished goods purchases to the AO/TPO for fresh examination using appropriate methods. The issues of leasehold land amortization and depreciation were also restored to the AO for reconsideration based on pending High Court decisions and prior Tribunal orders.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to Education Cess as not pressed by the assessee. The additional ground concerning Section 35(2AB) was already decided in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO had applied his mind and verified the transactions in question during both the original and reassessment proceedings, accepting the assessee's submissions as one possible view. The Pr.CIT's dissatisfaction with the extent of verification did not automatically make the order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on borrowed satisfaction and that the addition under Section 68 was not warranted. The assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing confirmations, bank statements, and financial details of the lenders.

The Tribunal held that additions/disallowances under Section 153C require incriminating material pertaining to the assessment year in question found during a search. Since the relied-upon information was not linked to the search and lacked year-specific incriminating material, the grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that additions/disallowances under Section 153C require incriminating material pertaining to the assessment year in question found during a search. Since the relied-upon information was not linked to the search and lacked year-specific incriminating material, the grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the amended trust deed is the operative one and the pre-amended deed is irrelevant. It also noted that mere submission of an amendment to the Charity Commissioner is not sufficient; registration and approval are required.

The Tribunal held that proceedings initiated and orders passed in the name of a dead person are not valid. Since the AO was unaware of the death and the death certificate was submitted for the first time, the issues were restored to the AO for re-examination.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary order was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries and that the PCIT had erred in his findings.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the appeal was not adjudicated on merits. The case was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was vague and defective as the Assessing Officer did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following jurisdictional High Court precedents, the penalty was deemed bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the AO's decision to assess the peak credit, after making inquiries and rejecting the assessee's claim of opening cash balance, represented a possible view. Therefore, the revision order by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the AO failed to controvert the assessee's evidence, including loan confirmations, bank statements, and affidavits, and that the third party's statement was retracted. The Tribunal also noted the lack of opportunity for cross-examination.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the AO failed to controvert the assessee's evidence, including loan confirmations, bank statements, and affidavits, and that the third party's statement was retracted. The Tribunal also noted the lack of opportunity for cross-examination.

The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., held that employees' contribution to welfare funds, if paid after the due date, is not allowable as a deduction. The issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision.

The ITAT held that the CIT(Exemptions) failed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee before rejecting the applications. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's orders and restored the matters for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the grounds of appeal of the assessee. Regarding the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal dismissed grounds 1 and 2, following its earlier decision in the case of M/s J.B. Boda Surveyors P Ltd. For ground 3, the Tribunal, after rectifying an apparent mistake in its earlier order, also dismissed the ground. The Tribunal noted that the assessee declared undisclosed income for the block period, which is distinct from the regular return. The assessee claimed deductions against this undisclosed income. The Tribunal observed that even under amended provisions, the assessee was not eligible for making such claims, even if the receipts were presumed to be from professional or technical services. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order on the issue in dispute and accordingly upheld it. The appeal of the assessee was also dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was covered by the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT. The exception for penny stock cases under Circular No. 23 of 2019 was not applicable as the loss arose from a written-off investment, not a transfer.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT had exceeded his jurisdiction in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263. Following a coordinate bench's decision on identical issues, the Tribunal found that the AO had adequately enquired into the matters and that the PCIT's order was not sustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the director's health issues. The core issue of whether the inflated sales entries constituted undisclosed income was not decided in this excerpt, as the judgment focuses on admitting the appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the set-off of current year losses against unexplained income for AY 2016-17, citing a CBDT circular. The amendment disallowing loss set-off was applicable from AY 2017-18 onwards.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the set-off of current year losses against unexplained income for AY 2016-17, citing a CBDT circular. The amendment disallowing loss set-off was applicable from AY 2017-18 onwards.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's electronic submissions were not considered by the CIT. In the interest of substantial justice, the matter was restored to the CIT for fresh adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT had exceeded his jurisdiction in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263. Following a coordinate bench's decision on identical issues, the Tribunal found that the AO had adequately enquired into the matters and that the PCIT's order was not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT rejected the application for lack of tangible material regarding the trust's activities. However, considering the interest of substantial justice, the matter was restored to the CIT for fresh decision after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The ITAT held that the CIT(Exemptions) failed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee before rejecting the applications. The rejections were also based on insufficient grounds without further inquiry.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s comments and findings on violations of the IMC Regulations and IMS Act, made without providing an opportunity to be heard, were not justified. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the grounds of appeal of the assessee. Regarding the Revenue's appeal, the Tribunal dismissed grounds 1 and 2, following its earlier decision in the case of M/s J.B. Boda Surveyors P Ltd. For ground 3, the Tribunal, after rectifying an apparent mistake in its earlier order, also dismissed the ground. The Tribunal noted that the assessee declared undisclosed income for the block period, which is distinct from the regular return. The assessee claimed deductions against this undisclosed income. The Tribunal observed that even under amended provisions, the assessee was not eligible for making such claims, even if the receipts were presumed to be from professional or technical services. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order on the issue in dispute and accordingly upheld it. The appeal of the assessee was also dismissed.

The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted as genuine, the entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine. Only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be taxed.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was not specifically confronted with the deficiencies in their submission and was thus denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The CIT(E)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not considered the documents filed by the appellant and had not granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted documentary evidence to support the purchases. The AO had not presented any contrary material to disprove these evidences.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the assessee's appeal. The assessee failed to appear for multiple hearings, and the Tribunal proceeded to decide the appeal on merits based on the available record and the Ld. DR's submissions.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) can only be made on expenditure claimed as a deduction in the profit and loss account. The Assessing Officer's disallowance of 30% of total expenses was not justified.

The Tribunal deleted an addition of Rs. 97,50,004/- made by the AO, finding the source of payment to the creditor was explained. The issue of discrepancy in ledger balances was restored to the AO for verification. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.