ITAT Mumbai Judgments — April 2023

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 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 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 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 allowed the appeal partly. It noted that the ground related to bad debts was withdrawn by the assessee. For the repairs expenses, the Tribunal relied on a prior ITAT decision that had set aside the PCIT's order on this issue, making the addition unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the cooperative credit society from its surplus funds parked with nationalized and commercial banks is attributable to its business activities and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that these investments were made in compliance with statutory requirements and were integral to the society's business operations.

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 interest income earned by the cooperative credit society from its surplus funds parked with nationalized and commercial banks is attributable to its business activities and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The investments were made in compliance with statutory requirements and were integral to the society's business of providing credit facilities to its members.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to file a certificate as prescribed under the first proviso to Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the matter afresh after considering this certificate.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 for filing appeals. The Revenue was given liberty to restore the appeal if it could prove an exception applied.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to file a certificate as prescribed under the first proviso to Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the matter afresh after considering this certificate.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to file a certificate as prescribed under the first proviso to Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the matter afresh after considering this certificate.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to file a certificate as prescribed under the first proviso to Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the matter afresh after considering this certificate.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons for delay to be non-deliberate. It held that the CIT(A)'s order was unsustainable due to the violation of natural justice principles by not providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E for levying late fees for delayed TDS return filing is prospective and applies only to defaults after June 1, 2015. Therefore, late fees cannot be levied for periods prior to this date.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the addition to income is made on an estimated basis. Following various judicial precedents, the penalty levied was quashed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not furnish sufficient documentary evidence to support the sources of funds for property purchase and cash deposits. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not granting the assessee an opportunity for a personal hearing as mandated by the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021. The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal restored the issue of arm's length price for services to the TPO for fresh consideration, stating the facts were identical to a previous year's decision. The cross-objection by the revenue regarding depreciation on goodwill was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Regarding common expenses for Section 80-IA deduction, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to follow earlier settled precedents in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal found that it was unclear whether the assessee was provided with the remand report. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the addition/disallowance in the quantum proceedings was deleted by the Tribunal itself, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition under Section 68 as the assessee failed to produce original cash books. However, the Tribunal modified the addition under Section 69C to 9% of bogus purchases based on a High Court decision.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to file a certificate as prescribed under the first proviso to Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the matter afresh after considering this certificate.

The Tribunal held that the order for special audit was bad in law as it was based on surmises and not objective criteria, as required by Section 142(2A). Consequently, the assessment order was also quashed as being time-barred and unsustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict additions on bogus purchases to 9% of the purchase value, following a High Court ruling. However, the Tribunal confirmed the additions made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, as the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence or original cash books.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) is not allowable on interest income earned from deposits with cooperative banks and nationalized banks, as it does not partake the character of its operational income. However, the validity of reopening was considered differently for different assessment years.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to file a certificate as prescribed under the first proviso to Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the matter afresh after considering this certificate.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Regarding common expenses for Section 80-IA deduction, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to follow earlier settled precedents in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether disallowance under Section 14A can be adjusted while computing book profit under Section 115JB is debatable and covered by a Special Bench decision. Such debatable issues are beyond the purview of rectification proceedings under Section 154.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESI made after the due dates prescribed by the respective Acts is correct, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Private Limited. Such disallowance is permissible under Section 143(1) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for delays in filing TDS returns pertaining to periods prior to June 1, 2015. For appeals dismissed on limitation, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had decided similar appeals on merits, implying condonation of delay, and applied parity.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee provided ledger confirmations, invoices, and bank statements for the purchases, and the corresponding sales were not doubted, the entire purchases could not be disallowed. The addition of 12.5% of the gross profit, as confirmed by the CIT(A), was deemed reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition under Section 68 as the assessee failed to produce original cash books. However, the Tribunal modified the addition under Section 69C to 9% of bogus purchases based on a High Court decision.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) is not allowable on interest income earned from deposits with cooperative banks and nationalized banks, as it does not partake the character of its operational income. However, the validity of reopening was considered differently for different assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) is not allowable on interest income earned from deposits with cooperative banks and nationalized banks, as it does not partake the character of its operational income. However, the validity of reopening was considered differently for different assessment years.

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for delays in filing TDS returns pertaining to periods prior to June 1, 2015. For appeals dismissed on limitation, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had decided similar appeals on merits, implying condonation of delay, and applied parity.

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 deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) is not allowable on interest income earned from deposits with cooperative banks and nationalized banks, as it does not partake the character of its operational income. However, the validity of reopening was considered differently for different assessment years.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to file a certificate as prescribed under the first proviso to Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the matter afresh after considering this certificate.

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

The Tribunal held that late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for delays in filing TDS returns pertaining to periods prior to June 1, 2015. For appeals dismissed on limitation, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had decided similar appeals on merits, implying condonation of delay, and applied parity.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a co-operative society, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned from investments in other co-operative societies or co-operative banks. The reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Totgars Cooperative Sales Society Ltd. was found to be distinguishable on facts.

The Tribunal restored the issue of arm's length price for services to the TPO for fresh consideration, stating the facts were identical to a previous year's decision. The cross-objection by the revenue regarding depreciation on goodwill was dismissed as infructuous.

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 late fees under Section 234E cannot be levied for delays in filing TDS returns pertaining to periods prior to June 1, 2015. For appeals dismissed on limitation, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had decided similar appeals on merits, implying condonation of delay, and applied parity.

The Tribunal held that the order of the TPO was passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. Consequently, the assessment order was considered void and bad in law.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause due to the chartered accountant's negligence. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF & ESI made after the due date prescribed under the respective Acts is justified, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P.Ltd. The adjustment made under Section 143(1) is permissible as it is an incorrect claim apparent from the information.

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.