ITAT Mumbai Judgments — March 2023

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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal allowed the deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment related to investment advisory services, finding that the assessee had proved the rendition and benefit of these services.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. For the assessee's appeal, the Tribunal allowed the deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment related to investment advisory services, finding that the assessee had proved the rendition and benefit of these services.

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 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 set aside the transfer pricing adjustment related to interest on advances to associated enterprises. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-benchmark the transaction using an appropriate method and comparability study.

The Tribunal found no discrepancy in the TDS credit claimed by the assessee. It also held that the AO had correctly allowed deductions for bonus and gratuity as they were paid before the due date. The Tribunal further found that the AO had rightly granted the deduction for CSR expenses under Section 80G.

The Tribunal set aside the transfer pricing adjustment related to interest on advances to associated enterprises. It directed the Assessing Officer to re-benchmark the transaction using an appropriate method and comparability study.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not keen on contesting the case due to non-representation and lack of efforts to prosecute the appeals.

The Tribunal held that a portion of the solicitor's fees was allowable as it related to the property transfer, and the payment to the tenant for vacating the premises was also an allowable deduction. The issue of indexation was not explicitly discussed in the provided excerpt.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 43CA, increasing the tolerance band for the difference between sale consideration and stamp duty value to 10%, is retrospective. Therefore, differences within this band should not be taxed.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not keen on contesting the case due to non-representation and lack of efforts to prosecute the appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not keen on contesting the case due to non-representation and lack of efforts to prosecute the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantially discharged its onus by providing confirmations, bank statements, and financial statements for unsecured loans. The absence of Returns of Income for two lenders alone did not render the transactions non-genuine.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not keen on contesting the case due to non-representation and lack of efforts to prosecute the appeals.

The Tribunal held that write-back of prior period adjustments and sundry credits should be considered income from core activities under the Tonnage Tax Scheme, and Section 41(1) cannot be invoked separately. Reimbursement of overheads for managed vessels is also part of the core activity.

The Tribunal held that write-back of prior period adjustments and sundry credits should be considered income from core activities under the Tonnage Tax Scheme, and Section 41(1) cannot be invoked separately. Reimbursement of overheads for managed vessels is also part of the core activity.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposited by the assessee was within the limits prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017 for cash deposits during demonetization. The Tribunal also considered the affidavit from the assessee's mother regarding a Rs. 2.5 lakhs deposit.

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existing entity is without jurisdiction and therefore null and void. Such a jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by Section 292B of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the payments were not in the nature of 'Royalty' or 'Fees for Technical Services'. It further directed the AO to re-examine the taxability of these receipts as 'Business Income' under Section 9(1)(i) of the Act, as the earlier authorities had not properly analyzed the facts and jurisprudence on this aspect.

The Tribunal held that the payments were not in the nature of 'Royalty' or 'Fees for Technical Services'. It further directed the AO to re-examine the taxability of these receipts as 'Business Income' under Section 9(1)(i) of the Act, as the earlier authorities had not properly analyzed the facts and jurisprudence on this aspect.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to alleged over-reporting of cancellation of online lottery tickets, finding no specific evidence for the assessment year. However, the issue of profit on unsold tickets was remitted back to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to alleged over-reporting of cancellation of online lottery tickets, finding no specific evidence for the assessment year. However, the issue of profit on unsold tickets was remitted back to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee possessed Form 26A but failed to submit it to the authorities due to a system glitch. Considering this, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present the form.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance of business expenditure. The decision followed a coordinate bench ruling in the assessee's own case, which held that a pending appeal to a higher court does not diminish the binding effect of a coordinate bench's order.

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case and a group company's case, which held that indirect expenses like administrative and selling expenses should be charged to the profit and loss account. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be reasoned and upheld it.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESI made after the statutory due date is permissible under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Private Limited. The disallowance is to be restricted to the employee's contribution.

The Tribunal held that disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESI made after the statutory due date is permissible under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Private Limited. The disallowance is to be restricted to the employee's contribution.

The Tribunal held that the payments were not in the nature of 'Royalty' or 'Fees for Technical Services'. It further directed the AO to re-examine the taxability of these receipts as 'Business Income' under Section 9(1)(i) of the Act, as the earlier authorities had not properly analyzed the facts and jurisprudence on this aspect.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- for appeals before the Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the loss on account of error trades is a part of the assessee's regular business transactions and is allowable against business income. The Tribunal found the DRP's reasoning on the revenue's grounds to be reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiries and accepted one of the permissible views in law regarding the treatment of bad debts and insurance proceeds. The PCIT's assumption of facts and reasoning for revision were found to be unjustified.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the AO/TPO to restrict the guarantee commission to 0.50% and restoring issues related to interest expenditure, TDS credit, carry forward of losses, and interest on refund to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal without considering the additional evidence and without seeking a remand report from the AO. The matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, upholding some disallowances made by the lower authorities while restricting others based on previous year's treatment or ad-hoc estimations. The assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence for the expenses.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding royalty payments, following its previous decisions where CUP was not considered the most appropriate method. Similarly, adjustments for interest on ECB loans were deleted based on prior rulings. However, the appeal against penalty proceedings and interest levy was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the transaction was a sale of shares and not capital financing. The re-characterization by the DRP was based on surmises and conjectures, making the addition unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the loss on account of error trades is a part of the assessee's regular business transactions and is allowable against business income. The Tribunal found the DRP's reasoning on the revenue's grounds to be reasonable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh after considering the submissions and documents, and providing a sufficient opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the addition could not be sustained solely based on the assessee's name appearing in a third party's seized document without further corroboration. The identity of the person and the reason for payment were not established.

The Tribunal held that the addition of cash payments to the assessee's income could not be sustained solely based on the assessee's name appearing in a third party's seized document. The identity of the person and the reason for payment were not established.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to decide in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The disallowance of PF and ESIC was to be re-examined.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's allegations were similar to those previously dealt with in other cases where retracted statements were relied upon. Following those precedents, the Tribunal found the CIT(A) justified in deleting the addition.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's allegations were similar to those previously dealt with in other cases where retracted statements were relied upon. Following those precedents, the Tribunal found the CIT(A) justified in deleting the addition.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's allegations were similar to those previously dealt with in other cases where retracted statements were relied upon. Following those precedents, the Tribunal found the CIT(A) justified in deleting the addition.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not a full-fledged manufacturer and that the TPO was not justified in bifurcating the transactions into manufacturing and trading segments. It also found that the advertisement expenses were merely an accounting entry.

The Tribunal held that the loss on account of error trades is a part of the assessee's regular business transactions and is allowable against business income. The Tribunal found the DRP's reasoning on the revenue's grounds to be reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's order was barred by limitation as it was passed on January 30, 2013, when the last date for passing the order was January 29, 2013. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer based on this order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to comply with the DRP's directions by not examining the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee regarding foreign remittances. Consequently, the assessment order to that extent was considered without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's argument about rolled-over advances was a new plea not raised before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.