ITAT Mumbai Judgments — March 2023

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from cooperative banks, following various High Court decisions. However, the deduction under Section 80P(2)(c) was not applicable as the income was not attributable to the specified activities.

The Tribunal held that the date of allotment letter should be considered as the date of agreement for sale, and the stamp duty value on that date should be used for taxation. The matter was restored to the AO for recalculation.

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. is binding and that delayed payment of employee contributions to PF and ESI beyond the due dates prescribed under respective Acts results in a disallowance. Such a disallowance is an incorrect claim that can be adjusted under section 143(1).

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot disallow the total value of an asset and simultaneously disallow depreciation when the assessee has only claimed the benefit of depreciation. The disallowance should be limited to the benefit claimed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand from prior bank withdrawals, as evidenced by her cash book and bank statements. Following a precedent, the Tribunal found the assessee's explanation to be reasonable and plausible.

The Tribunal held that once the addition on account of bogus purchases was deleted in the quantum appeal, no penalty could be levied. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of addition for bogus purchases, following a previous precedent where the assessee's profit rate was accepted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as the assessee was undergoing insolvency proceedings before the NCLT. This dismissal was based on Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

For AY 2012-13 and 2013-14, the Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A are not permissible if no incriminating material is found during the search, setting aside the orders. For subsequent years, the Tribunal allowed the estimation of notional rent on unsold stock but directed it to be computed based on municipal ratable value, with certain riders.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's husband accepted ownership of the bank accounts and the interest income was assessed in his hands in subsequent years, the assessee could not be considered the owner of the income. Therefore, the income could not be taxed in her hands.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee's inability to present its case before the CIT(A), decided to give the assessee one last opportunity. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

For AY 2012-13 and 2013-14, the Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A are not permissible if no incriminating material is found during the search, setting aside the orders. For subsequent years, the Tribunal allowed the estimation of notional rent on unsold stock but directed it to be computed based on municipal ratable value, with certain riders.

The Tribunal held that once the addition on account of bogus purchases was deleted in the quantum appeal, no penalty could be levied. The Tribunal also confirmed the deletion of addition for bogus purchases, following a previous precedent where the assessee's profit rate was accepted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided all relevant documents for share purchases and sales through regulated exchanges and banking channels. It found no evidence of the assessee being involved in price manipulation or being an exit provider.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessment years, additions based solely on retracted statements without incriminating material found during search are not sustainable. For other years, the issues were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the pandemic as a force majeure. It also held that interest paid on late payment of service tax is compensatory and allowable as an expenditure under Section 37(1).

The Tribunal held that the PCIT could not revise the assessment order on the issue of penalty for violation of Section 269SS. The Tribunal also found that the PCIT had not raised the issue of particulars of payment to persons specified under Section 40A(2)(b) in the show cause notice.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessment years, additions based solely on retracted statements without incriminating material found during search are not sustainable. For other years, the issues were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination.

For AY 2012-13 and 2013-14, the Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A are not permissible if no incriminating material is found during the search, setting aside the orders. For subsequent years, the Tribunal allowed the estimation of notional rent on unsold stock but directed it to be computed based on municipal ratable value, with certain riders.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessment years, additions based solely on retracted statements without incriminating material found during search are not sustainable. For other years, the issues were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal on merits after considering the evidence. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, with a direction to afford the assessee an opportunity to present her case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not filing the return, citing a bona fide belief that their income was below the taxable limit and family illness. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271F was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the notice was sent to a wrong email ID, and the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the matter back for adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide the deficient documents to the CIT(A) for a decision on the mutuality principle.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as it was based on audit objections and a change of opinion by the AO, rather than independent application of mind. Consequently, the additions made by the AO were deleted on merits.

For AY 2012-13 and 2013-14, the Tribunal held that additions under Section 153A are not permissible if no incriminating material is found during the search, setting aside the orders. For subsequent years, the Tribunal allowed the estimation of notional rent on unsold stock but directed it to be computed based on municipal ratable value, with certain riders.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order framed by the AO in the name of the erstwhile M/s. Morgan Construction Company (I) Pvt. Ltd., which had merged with M/s. Siemens Ltd., was void ab-initio. This was in line with previous decisions of the ITAT and the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessment years, additions based solely on retracted statements without incriminating material found during search are not sustainable. For other years, the issues were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided all relevant documents for share purchases and sales through regulated exchanges and banking channels. It found no evidence of the assessee being involved in price manipulation or being an exit provider.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessment years, additions based solely on retracted statements without incriminating material found during search are not sustainable. For other years, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessment years, additions based solely on retracted statements without incriminating material found during search are not sustainable. For other years, the issues were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessment years, additions based solely on retracted statements without incriminating material found during search are not sustainable. For other years, the issues were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessment years, additions based solely on retracted statements without incriminating material found during search are not sustainable. For other years, the issues were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the revised sale consideration of Rs. 25 lakh was genuine based on the settlement deed and supplementary agreements. The AO's objections regarding the non-presentation of a cheque and the lack of commercial substance were found to be without merit.

The Tribunal held that the benchmarking of international transactions should be done on the date of actual shipment using the prevailing exchange rate, not the date of the agreement. It also held that the benefit of indexation for long-term capital gains can be claimed before appellate authorities.

The Tribunal held that external TNMM is the appropriate method for transfer pricing adjustments, overturning the TPO's use of internal TNMM. It also allowed the deduction for ESOP expenses, following High Court and Supreme Court precedents.

The Tribunal noted that the related case of Hazel Mercantile Ltd., which formed the basis for the CIT(A)'s deletion, was itself set aside by a co-ordinate bench and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the present appeal and cross objections were also set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record specific dissatisfaction regarding the assessee's claim for disallowance of expenses. Therefore, invoking Rule 8D was not in accordance with the law, and the disallowance made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's husband accepted ownership of the bank accounts and the interest income was assessed in his hands in subsequent years, the assessee could not be considered the owner of the income. Therefore, the income could not be taxed in her hands.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's contracts were for installation purposes and fell under Article 5(3) of the DTAA, as the duration of each project in India was less than 183 days. The Tribunal also noted that similar views were taken in the assessee's own previous cases.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessment years, additions based solely on retracted statements without incriminating material found during search are not sustainable. For other years, the issues were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessment years, additions based solely on retracted statements without incriminating material found during search are not sustainable. For other years, the issues were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the gross profit rate declared by the assessee. The addition was restricted to the difference between the rate applied by the CIT(A) and the rate declared by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on the basis of a statement recorded behind the assessee's back, without providing a copy or allowing cross-examination of the deponent. Since the assessee denied the allegation and there was no corroborative material, the addition was unsafe.

The Tribunal held that for concluded assessment years, additions based solely on retracted statements without incriminating material found during search are not sustainable. For other years, the issues were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that the management service fees received by the assessee were not taxable as royalty under the India-Netherlands DTAA. It also directed the AO to grant TDS credit and remanded the issue of interest under Section 234A for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made while computing book profit under Section 115JB. The computation under Section 115JB is to be made without resorting to the computation under Section 14A.

The Tribunal held that the benchmarking of international transactions should be done on the date of actual shipment using the prevailing exchange rate, not the date of the agreement. It also held that the benefit of indexation for long-term capital gains can be claimed before appellate authorities.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of substantial justice, allowing the assessee to present their submissions and documents.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had established a direct nexus between the interest income received from the firm and the interest paid on the bank loan. The AO had examined this aspect and accepted the claim, making the PCIT's revision unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot make a disallowance under Section 14A without the assessee claiming any expenditure. The disallowance was deemed far-fetched and without material support.