ITAT Mumbai Judgments — March 2023

The Tribunal held that Section 50C of the Income Tax Act is applicable only for capital gains and not for business income. The AO's addition based on stamp duty valuation was therefore not sustainable. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's explanations for the lower sale prices were not entirely convincing.

The Tribunal held that the on-money amount should be determined based on the difference between the booking rate and a reasonable market rate determined by a previous ITAT ruling. The matter was restored to the AO to ascertain the exact on-money amount for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal held that while the AO had jurisdiction to rectify the mistake under Section 154, the disallowance under Section 14A(ii) should be deleted as the assessee's own funds exceeded its investments. The disallowance under Section 14A(iii) was restricted to the amount of exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the on-money amount should be determined based on the difference between the booking rate and a reasonable market rate determined by a previous ITAT ruling. The matter was restored to the AO to ascertain the exact on-money amount for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 and 148 were invalid as they were based on incorrect facts and the Assessing Officer's belief was not justified. Consequently, all additions made were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 were invalid as they were initiated on incorrect facts and the Assessing Officer failed to establish that income had escaped assessment. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the on-money amount should be determined based on the difference between the booking rate and a reasonable market rate determined by a previous ITAT ruling. The matter was restored to the AO to ascertain the exact on-money amount for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the on-money amount should be determined based on the difference between the booking rate and a reasonable market rate determined by a previous ITAT ruling. The matter was restored to the AO to ascertain the exact on-money amount for the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of purchases. However, considering that sales turnover and inventory were accepted, the addition was restricted to 7.5% of the unproved purchases, modifying the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of purchases. However, considering that sales turnover and inventory were accepted, the addition was restricted to 7.5% of the unproved purchases, modifying the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal observed that the share price of the company had an unnatural jump, with negligible net worth, profits, and EPS, indicating manipulative trading practices. Therefore, the claim for exemption under Section 10(38) was not allowed.

The Tribunal restored the issue of long-term capital gains on slump sale to the AO for re-examination. It also restored the disallowance under Section 14A for recomputation based on a Special Bench decision. The other issues were not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal observed that the AO did not doubt the corresponding sales and therefore, only the profit margin embedded in such transactions could be taxed. The disallowance was restricted to 5% of the impugned purchases.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal based on the Supreme Court's directions regarding limitation extension due to the pandemic. The penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted on a technical ground as the underlying assessment order was no longer valid.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made the addition solely based on the statement of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain, which was later retracted. The assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the genuineness of the loan, and the AO failed to controvert these facts. Therefore, the addition was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made the addition solely based on the statement of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain, which was later retracted. The assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the genuineness of the loan, and the AO failed to controvert these facts. Therefore, the addition was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the sale of land, despite bifurcation into smaller plots, was a realization of a capital investment and not an adventure in the nature of trade. The assessee's conduct indicated an investor rather than a dealer in land.

The Tribunal observed that the share price of the company had an unnatural jump, with negligible net worth, profits, and EPS, indicating manipulative trading practices. Therefore, the claim for exemption under Section 10(38) was not allowed.

The Tribunal held that the addition of sale proceeds of shares under Section 69 was justified as the transactions were found to be bogus penny stock manipulations. The Tribunal also upheld the addition of the ICD under Section 2(22)(e) as deemed dividend, finding that the conditions for its applicability were met.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal based on the Supreme Court's directions regarding limitation extension during the pandemic. The penalty was deleted on a technical ground because the underlying assessment order was no longer valid.

The Tribunal found that the opening balance of the amounts in question was not clearly established, and the assessee failed to provide necessary documents to the lower authorities. The CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte without adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made the addition solely based on the statement of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain, which was later retracted. The assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the genuineness of the loan, and the AO failed to controvert these facts. Therefore, the addition was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made the addition solely based on the statement of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain, which was later retracted. The assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the genuineness of the loan, and the AO failed to controvert these facts. Therefore, the addition was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the revised return, based on the C&AG appointed auditor's financials and approved by shareholders, was valid. Consequently, the disallowances and additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) based on the original return were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made the addition solely based on the statement of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain, which was later retracted. The assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the genuineness of the loan, and the AO failed to controvert these facts. Therefore, the addition was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the subscription income for accessing a standard online database does not constitute royalty. It followed previous decisions in the assessee's own case and jurisdictional High Court rulings.

The Tribunal found the assessee's reply regarding clause 3(b)(24) satisfactory and saw no violation of law in clause 3(b)(19). It held that exemption certificates should not be denied and that the CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity to rectify any discrepancies. Consequently, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside.

The Tribunal observed that the share price of the company had an unnatural jump, with negligible net worth, profits, and EPS, indicating manipulative trading practices. Therefore, the claim for exemption under Section 10(38) was not allowed.

The Tribunal found the assessee's reply regarding clause 3(b)(24) satisfactory and saw no violation of law in clause 3(b)(19). It held that exemption certificates should not be denied and that the CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity to rectify any discrepancies. Consequently, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CPC's adjustment of returned income without proper opportunity of being heard was null and void. It also directed the AO to allow TDS credit to the extent reflected in Form 26AS and provide an opportunity for substantiating the balance amount.

The Tribunal held that two comparable companies, Excel Infoways Limited and Infosys BPO Limited, should be excluded from the list of comparables used for determining the arm's length price. This was due to functional incomparability, brand value, and acquisition of foreign companies impacting profitability.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders regarding the assessment of interest income on a mercantile basis, the addition of cash credits due to non-discharge of burden of proof, and the confirmation of penalties for concealment of income related to share sales and bank interest. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's plea for cash basis accounting of interest income.

The Tribunal restored the issue of interest expenditure disallowance to the AO for fresh examination, as the tax authorities had not examined the assessee's contention about substituting sister concern loans with bank loans. The disallowance under Section 14A was directed to be restricted to exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as notices were not intimated to the assessee's provided email. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity for hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after affording due opportunity.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments held with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). This is because a cooperative bank remains a cooperative society, and Section 80P(4) does not explicitly deny this deduction.

The Tribunal restored the issue of long-term capital gains on slump sale to the AO for re-examination. It also restored the disallowance under Section 14A for recomputation based on a Special Bench decision. The other issues were not explicitly detailed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as notices were not intimated to the assessee's provided email. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal considered the reasons for the delay, particularly the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The assessee's explanation for the delay was accepted.

The Tribunal held that service tax, being a statutory levy collected on behalf of the government and not having any profit element, should not be included in the gross receipts for computing income under Section 44B. This decision followed previous rulings in the assessee's own case and other High Court judgments.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders regarding the assessment of interest income on a mercantile basis, the addition of cash credits due to non-discharge of burden of proof, and the confirmation of penalties for concealment of income related to share sales and bank interest. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's plea for cash basis accounting of interest income.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was beyond the scope of Section 153C as there was no incriminating material found during the search that pertained to the assessee company. Therefore, the addition was quashed on legal grounds.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without affording an adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, all issues were restored to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were bogus, the addition should be based on an estimation of the profit element embedded in these purchases. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to compute the net profit on these bogus purchases at specific percentages for each assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular dated 03.02.2022 is not applicable to the assessment year in question. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim the benefit of the restricted definition of FTS under the India-Portugal DTAA via the Most Favored Nation (MFN) clause. Since no technical knowledge was made available, the services cannot be taxed as FTS.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a co-operative credit society and not a primary co-operative bank, is not hit by the provisions of Section 80P(4). Therefore, the deduction claimed under Section 80P(2) is allowable.

The Tribunal, following its own earlier decision in the assessee's own case, held that the provision for loss on contracts is principally upheld but needs to be ascertained. The matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the assessee was assessable under business income after allowing deduction of interest expenses. It also held that the addition of expenses not recorded in the books was not justified as the revenue failed to provide evidence. The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction u/s. 80IA for both assessment years, including on 'Other Incomes', following its own prior decisions. It also deleted the disallowance of Roaming Cost u/s. 40(a)(ia) and directed adjustment for provision for doubtful debts u/s. 115JB.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were bogus, the addition should be based on an estimation of the profit element embedded in these purchases. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to compute the net profit on these bogus purchases at specific percentages for each assessment year.