ITAT Mumbai Judgments — April 2023

The Tribunal held that assessments for Assessment Years prior to 2011-12 were barred by limitation as they fell outside the 10-year period prescribed by Explanation 1 to Section 153A. For subsequent years, the undisclosed income did not exceed ₹50 lakhs, divesting the AO of jurisdiction under Section 153C.

The Tribunal held that both the Transfer Pricing Officer's order and the final assessment order were barred by limitation. Consequently, these orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that since the entire addition was based on estimation and guesswork, the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) were not attracted. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that assessments for Assessment Years prior to 2011-12 were barred by limitation as they fell outside the 10-year period prescribed by Explanation 1 to Section 153A. For subsequent years, the undisclosed income did not exceed ₹50 lakhs, divesting the AO of jurisdiction under Section 153C.

The Tribunal set aside the issue of transfer pricing adjustment for regional service fees back to the TPO for fresh determination, directing the assessee to demonstrate the necessity and benefit of the services. Similarly, issues regarding computation of total income and disallowance of customs duty were restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) was vitiated because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that entries in books of accounts are not incriminating in themselves unless established to be false by other incriminating material found during the search. The Revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in resorting to estimation and guesswork without examining the evidence provided by the assessee. The assessee had submitted details of purchases, proof of banking channel payments, and affidavits from suppliers.

The Tribunal restored the issue of PF/ESIC contribution disallowance to the AO for fresh verification, as the assessee claimed timely deposit. The penalty disallowance was allowed as the assessee had already disallowed it.

The Tribunal held that assessments for Assessment Years prior to 2011-12 were barred by limitation as they fell outside the 10-year period prescribed by Explanation 1 to Section 153A. For subsequent years, the undisclosed income did not exceed ₹50 lakhs, divesting the AO of jurisdiction under Section 153C.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate that the impugned amount pertained to income eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) and also failed to prove the source of the income. The claim for deduction was considered a new claim made after the search action, not supported by evidence or the auditor's report.

The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC, even if made before the return filing due date, is not an allowable deduction. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.

The Tribunal held that delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC, even if made before the due date of filing the return, is not an allowable deduction. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) was vitiated because it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that assessments for Assessment Years prior to 2011-12 were barred by limitation as they fell outside the 10-year period prescribed by Explanation 1 to Section 153A. For subsequent years, the undisclosed income did not exceed ₹50 lakhs, divesting the AO of jurisdiction under Section 153C.

The Tribunal held that since the corresponding sales were not doubted, only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases should be taxed. The disallowance was directed to be restricted to 18% for manufacturing purposes and 7% for trading activities, subject to verification.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that entries in books of accounts are not incriminating in themselves unless established to be false by other incriminating material found during the search. The Revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the TPO cannot determine the ALP at nil on an ad-hoc basis without applying prescribed methods. It also noted that the receipt of services was ascertainable and that the taxpayer had provided sufficient documentation.

The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC, even before the return filing due date, does not entitle the assessee to a deduction. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.

The Tribunal held that both the Transfer Pricing Officer's order and the final assessment order were barred by limitation. Consequently, these orders were quashed.

The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., holding that employee's contribution to PF/ESIC must be deposited by the prescribed due date to be eligible for deduction. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the penalty is not sustainable in law because the Assessing Officer failed to issue a valid show cause notice under Section 271(1)(c) by specifying whether the penalty was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Additionally, the original addition was based on estimation.

The Tribunal held that assessments for Assessment Years prior to 2011-12 were barred by limitation as they fell outside the 10-year period prescribed by Explanation 1 to Section 153A. For subsequent years, the undisclosed income did not exceed ₹50 lakhs, divesting the AO of jurisdiction under Section 153C.

The Tribunal held that assessments for Assessment Years prior to 2011-12 were barred by limitation as they fell outside the 10-year period prescribed by Explanation 1 to Section 153A. For subsequent years, the undisclosed income did not exceed ₹50 lakhs, divesting the AO of jurisdiction under Section 153C.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate that the impugned amount pertained to income eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10) and also failed to prove the source of the income. The claim for deduction was considered a new claim made after the search action, not supported by evidence or the auditor's report.

The Tribunal held that MSBTE falls within the definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, based on previous decisions and the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court. Consequently, its income is immune from taxation under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the additional ground regarding limitation as the case did not fall under the cited precedent. However, it remanded the issue of limitation under Section 201(3) to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Other issues were also remanded for verification.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were unsustainable as they were based on a change of opinion without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that assessments for Assessment Years prior to 2011-12 were barred by limitation as they fell outside the 10-year period prescribed by Explanation 1 to Section 153A. For subsequent years, the undisclosed income did not exceed ₹50 lakhs, divesting the AO of jurisdiction under Section 153C.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction for commission expenses. It also deleted the ad-hoc disallowances for staff welfare, miscellaneous, travelling, repairs, advertisement, communication, and cash discount expenses, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient details or that the disallowances were unwarranted.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made on guesswork and estimation. Following previous orders and High Court pronouncements, the Tribunal directed the AO to charge profit at the rate of 6.5% on the alleged bogus purchases.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the provision for gratuity written back. The assessee failed to provide evidence that the amount was credited to the profit and loss account or that it was disallowed in a prior year.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction for commission expenses. It also deleted the ad-hoc disallowances for staff welfare, miscellaneous, travelling, repairs, advertisement, communication, and cash discount expenses, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient details or that the disallowances were unwarranted.

The Tribunal held that since the corresponding sales were not doubted, only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases should be taxed. The disallowance was directed to be restricted to 18% for manufacturing purposes and 7% for trading activities, subject to verification.

The Tribunal corrected the assessment year in its previous order. The appeal in ITA No.2319/M/2022 should be read as pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15.

The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC beyond the due date prescribed under the Act is not an allowable deduction, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The disallowance made by the lower authorities is upheld.

The Tribunal dismissed the additional ground regarding limitation as the case did not fall under the cited precedent. However, it remanded the issue of limitation under Section 201(3) to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Other issues were also remanded for verification.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that entries in books of accounts are not incriminating in themselves unless established to be false by other incriminating material found during the search. The Revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC paid after the due dates is justified. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.

The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) is not attracted as the deposits were not allowances or deductions claimed in earlier years. Furthermore, making an unsustainable claim in the return does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, as per Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC, even before the return filing due date, does not entitle the assessee to a deduction. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.

The Tribunal held that the discounted price was justified as HHPL bore significant expenses that the assessee would otherwise incur. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues had been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in earlier years.

The Tribunal held that the issue of telescoping the addition of gross profit on unaccounted sales with the bogus long-term capital gains needed fresh consideration. The cross-objections by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the discounted price was justified as HHPL bore significant expenses that the assessee would otherwise incur. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues had been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in earlier years.

The Tribunal held that the issue of telescoping the addition of gross profit on unaccounted sales with the bogus long-term capital gains needed fresh consideration. The cross-objections by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the discounted price was justified as HHPL bore significant expenses that the assessee would otherwise incur. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues had been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in earlier years.

The Tribunal held that the discounted price was justified as HHPL bore significant expenses that the assessee would otherwise incur. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues had been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in earlier years.

The Tribunal directed that the appeal filed by the assessee be dismissed as withdrawn. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the TDS credit as the income was offered to tax in their hands and the original deductee (trust) did not claim the credit. The strict conditions of Rule 37BA were considered subservient to the spirit of Section 199(1) in these peculiar circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the discounted price was justified as HHPL bore significant expenses that the assessee would otherwise incur. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues had been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in earlier years.