ITAT Mumbai Judgments — March 2023

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 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 restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee was given liberty to file all evidence to support its claim that no such investment was made.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, restricted the addition to 3% of the bogus purchases. This was based on the principle that only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount.

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 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 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 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.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for additional evidence, finding it relevant to the computation of interest. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

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 rectification order passed under Section 154 was beyond the prescribed limitation period of four years from the end of the financial year in which the original order was passed. Therefore, the rectification order was invalid.

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 noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding on merits and that factual aspects needed verification. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the assessment to the AO for a fresh assessment.

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 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 reliance on the Bangalore Club case by the lower authorities was deemed incorrect.

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.

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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 payments for project-related services did not qualify as Royalty or Fees for Technical Services under the India-Singapore DTAA and should be treated as business profits, hence not taxable in India. The issue regarding regional support services was remanded to the AO for de novo adjudication.

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 CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition. The AO's own remand report indicated that the assessee had substantiated the loans received during the year, and the appeal was also liable to be dismissed on the ground of low tax effect.

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 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 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.

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 held that the provision for commission on sales, being an ascertained liability associated with sales, cannot be disallowed. However, the disallowance related to management fees was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the issue of eligibility for deduction under Section 80P, even with nominal members, is settled by the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues for the assessee in prior assessment years were decided in its favor.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to examine the documents submitted by the assessee and relied on general information from an investigation wing without establishing a direct link. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the death of the director's brother constituted a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notices. The penalty levied and confirmed by the lower authorities was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the disallowance under Section 14A. Following previous decisions, no disallowance is warranted when the assessee has not earned any exempt income.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee had made withdrawals from a Union Bank account, the utilization of these funds was not conclusively established. To ensure justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with proper opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.

The Tribunal held that delayed payment of employee's contribution to PF and ESIC is not allowable as a deduction, following the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. However, the issue of double disallowance was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal noted that the particulars of income were already reflected in the relevant schedules of the return of income. The CPC had not verified these details before treating the amount as business income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the trust's lack of technical awareness and competent staff as sufficient cause. The appeals were then admitted for hearing.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's premise that the assessee earned exempt income from all its investments was incorrect, as only tax-free bonds yielded exempt income. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary order was quashed.

The Tribunal restored the issue of refund of excess dividend distribution tax to the Assessing Officer to be decided in light of the Special Bench's upcoming decision. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law. The AO failed to satisfy the additional conditions required for reopening after four years, specifically by not disclosing any new tangible material or the assessee's failure to disclose material facts.