ITAT Mumbai Judgments — April 2023

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of sub-brokerage expenses requires fresh examination by the AO due to new evidence. However, the disallowance of salary expenses was upheld as the employees' returns showed business income instead of salary.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition for commission expenses and restricting it to 10% without proper justification. The issue of commission expenses was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the entire capital gain and deduction were considered in the hands of the assessee's wife, and a Coordinate Bench had ruled in her favor, the same income could not be taxed again in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, the proceedings against the assessee were considered bad in law.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, restricting the disallowance on unsecured loans to a specific mismatch amount and allowing additions on advances to be restricted to 4% of the advance received, considering it as an adventure in the nature of trade.

The Tribunal held that confirming protective additions without first adjudicating substantive additions in the hands of the main beneficiary (Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain) is premature. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the issue along with the appeal of Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153 of the Act. The reference made to the Mauritius Revenue Authority was specific to another company and did not extend the limitation period for the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) credit and TDS credit of merged entities, directing the AO to grant these credits after verification. It also dismissed grounds related to interest under Section 234B and penalty proceedings under Section 270A.

The Tribunal held that confirming protective additions without first adjudicating substantive additions in the hands of the main beneficiary (Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain) is premature. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the issue along with the appeal of Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain.

The Tribunal held that following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., no deduction is allowable for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESIC. The matter was restored to the AO to consider the employer's contribution and the specific claim regarding a delayed payment due to a holiday.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the assessee's plea for a last opportunity and the principles of natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153 of the Act. The reference made to the Mauritius Revenue Authority was specific to another company and did not extend the limitation period for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that confirming protective additions without first adjudicating substantive additions in the hands of the main beneficiary (Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain) is premature. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the issue along with the appeal of Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) credit and TDS credit of merged entities, directing the AO to grant these credits after verification. It also dismissed grounds related to interest under Section 234B and penalty proceedings under Section 270A.

The Tribunal held that confirming protective additions without first adjudicating substantive additions in the hands of the main beneficiary (Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain) is premature. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the issue along with the appeal of Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain.

The Tribunal held that the CPC had no jurisdiction to disallow the deduction under Section 143(1) as the assessee had filed its return within the due date. Furthermore, the disallowance on merits was also found unsustainable based on Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that confirming protective additions without first adjudicating substantive additions in the hands of the main beneficiary (Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain) is premature. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the issue along with the appeal of Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 67, as per Rule 128(9), does not preclude the assessee from claiming foreign tax credit. The Tribunal followed coordinate bench decisions which held that the requirement to file Form 67 is directory, not mandatory.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the assessee's plea for a last opportunity and the principles of natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal decided that the issues raised in the appeal and cross-objection were covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own case. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed, and the cross-objection was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 of the Act regarding the genuineness of share capital and premium received. The DCF valuation was found to be bogus and sham, lacking correlation with the company's actual financial position. The disallowance of advertisement expenses and credit card collection charges were also upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 of the Act regarding the genuineness of share capital and premium received. The DCF valuation was found to be bogus and sham, lacking correlation with the company's actual financial position. The disallowance of advertisement expenses and credit card collection charges were also upheld.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was not warranted to the extent it was calculated on total investments and interest-bearing funds. It also directed the Assessing Officer to verify and allow the LTCG exemption claim made during assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were a colorable device to generate fictitious LTCG and claim bogus exemption. The AO was justified in denying exemption under Section 10(38) and treating the gains as unexplained cash under Section 68. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the share transactions and the steep price rise.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 of the Act regarding the genuineness of share capital and premium received. The DCF valuation was found to be bogus and sham, lacking correlation with the company's actual financial position. The disallowance of advertisement expenses and credit card collection charges were also upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that business expenses are allowable even if no revenue is generated in a particular year, provided the business activity is ongoing. The disallowance under Section 14A was also deleted as the assessee had no exempt income.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including script transactions details and contract bills, which were not available before the lower authorities. It held that the assessee should not suffer for non-filing of material information and that these evidences play a vital role in decision-making.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 of the Act regarding the genuineness of share capital and premium received. The DCF valuation was found to be bogus and sham, lacking correlation with the company's actual financial position. The disallowance of advertisement expenses and credit card collection charges were also upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. It reasoned that while the purchases were not genuine, the assessee's sales were not doubted, implying material was purchased elsewhere.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 of the Act regarding the genuineness of share capital and premium received. The DCF valuation was found to be bogus and sham, lacking correlation with the company's actual financial position. The disallowance of advertisement expenses and credit card collection charges were also upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that Section 11(6) is not attracted if the cost of assets was not claimed as application of income. The Revenue failed to provide evidence to the contrary.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, stating it was crucial for decision-making. The case was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove 'CRP SECURE' is software. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to produce evidence.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to properly adjudicate the contentions raised by the appellant regarding the unsold flats. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that merely having sundry creditors in the balance sheet does not automatically trigger Section 41(1). The conditions precedent for invoking Section 41(1) must be fulfilled, and ad-hoc or estimated additions are not permissible.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that business expenses are allowable even if no revenue is generated in a particular year, provided the business activity is ongoing. The disallowance under Section 14A was also deleted as the assessee had no exempt income.

The Tribunal held that interest earned from co-operative banks is allowable as a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) as co-operative banks are a type of co-operative society. The Tribunal also noted that the lower authorities did not adjudicate the claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(c)(ii).

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the documents filed before the CIT(A). A cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee for their non-cooperative conduct.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 of the Act regarding the genuineness of share capital and premium received. The DCF valuation was found to be bogus and sham, lacking correlation with the company's actual financial position. The disallowance of advertisement expenses and credit card collection charges were also upheld.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of late payment of employee's contribution to PF and ESI beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective Acts is an incorrect claim. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT, which established that such delayed payments are not allowable deductions.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases from the mentioned parties might be suspect, the AO had not doubted the corresponding sales. Therefore, only the profit margin embedded in such transactions should be taxed. The Tribunal considered it fair to restrict the disallowance to 5% of the impugned purchases.

The Tribunal held that not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the builder, whose statement was relied upon by the AO, violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to consider the condonation application explaining the delay and adjudicate the appeal afresh on merits. The assessee was granted an opportunity for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering all submissions.

The Tribunal held that the addition for salary income was unjustified as the assessee provided a certificate from RBI confirming all payments were accounted for in TDS. Similarly, the addition for the gift was deleted after considering the son's revised computation of income and tax payment on capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not brought any clinching evidence on record to corroborate that the assessee had earned the impugned LTCG. The transaction was not reflected in the assessee's bank statement nor claimed in the return of income.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed various judicial pronouncements, including decisions of the Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts, which support this view.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) and an order was passed after the appeal was disposed of. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issues back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case, adhering to principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed various judicial decisions supporting this view.

The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer's order was passed beyond the prescribed time limit, rendering it void. Consequently, the subsequent assessment order was also deemed barred by limitation and quashed.