ITAT Mumbai Judgments — May 2023

The Tribunal found that the appeal was decided ex-parte without considering the assessee's submissions. Since the assessee expressed willingness to cooperate, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was undergoing insolvency proceedings. The appeal was dismissed with liberty to the Revenue to restore it after the moratorium period.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions could only be made if supported by incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found for the additions made, the additions were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided all relevant information to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lenders, and the transactions were routed through banking channels. The AO failed to bring any contrary material to disprove the loans.

The Tribunal held that the rental income should be treated as 'income from house property', following previous decisions in similar cases for the assessee. Consequently, the disallowance of interest expenses was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding corporate guarantee fees, directing a recomputation at a lower arm's length rate. The assessee's appeal for deduction of education cess was dismissed, following a Supreme Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions could only be made if supported by incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found for the additions made, the additions were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions could only be made if supported by incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found for the additions made, the additions were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to PF/ESIC deposited after the due date under the relevant Acts is not allowable as a deduction in terms of Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The amended provisions are considered clarificatory and apply retrospectively.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to establish any nexus between the assessee and the alleged entry operators or price rigging activities. The AO's additions were based on suspicion without cogent evidence linking the assessee to any fraudulent scheme.

The Tribunal held that the cost of acquisition of shares, which was incurred in an earlier assessment year, could not be disallowed in the current assessment year. Therefore, the revision order's direction to add Rs. 12,50,000/- as a disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions could only be made if supported by incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found for the additions made, the additions were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient own interest-free funds to cover the interest-free loans and advances, as evidenced by its financial statements. Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenditure was not sustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance based on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. However, it remanded the matter to the AO to verify if the disallowance should be restricted to Rs. 7,07,735/- as contended by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record valid dissatisfaction with the assessee's suo-moto disallowance and did not provide specific reasons for invoking Rule 8D. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal admitted additional grounds regarding the validity of the computation sheet and demand notice. It upheld the disallowance for delayed employee PF/ESI deposits but remanded the issue of employer's contribution for verification.

The Tribunal held that the issue of taxability of the superannuation fund contribution required detailed verification by the Assessing Officer to determine if it was employer's or employee's contribution. The disallowance of Provident Fund contribution was not disputed.

The Tribunal held that the date of acquisition for determining LTCG is the date of allotment, not the date of possession or registration. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to LTCG.

The Tribunal held that for allowing deduction of employee's contribution to PF/ESI, it must be deposited within the due date prescribed by the respective Acts. Failure to do so disentitles the assessee to the deduction.

The Tribunal held that dividend distribution tax under Section 115-O is on the domestic company, not the shareholder. Therefore, the DTAA rate for the shareholder is not applicable to this tax.

The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to PF/ESI must be deposited within the due date prescribed by the respective Acts to be eligible for deduction. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., the disallowance was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the software expenses were revenue in nature and that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover advances to suppliers, making the interest disallowance unsustainable. The assessee's cross-objections regarding excess Dividend Distribution Tax refund were also dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, such as monthly stock and sales registers. Therefore, the case was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions could only be made if supported by incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found for the additions made, the additions were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions could only be made if supported by incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found for the additions made, the additions were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Private Ltd. applies retrospectively, making the disallowance under Section 143(1) valid. Explanations to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are clarificatory, and the tax audit report disclosure now indicates a disallowance.

The Tribunal held that while there was a violation of Section 13(1)(c), the exemption under Section 11 should only be denied to the extent of the violation, not in its entirety. The disallowance of foreign travel expenses was restricted to 50% as admitted.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT. The Tribunal found that the grounds raised by the assessee were rejected and the findings of the CIT(A) were upheld.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of a PAN mismatch. The substantial issue of examining the source of credit under Section 68 was not addressed by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the jewellery and cash found were not unexplained, considering the CBDT Instruction No. 1916 and the customary practices in India. The benefit of the limits prescribed in the CBDT Circular should be given.

The Tribunal held that technicalities should not obstruct substantial justice and that the issue of mutuality had not been examined on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as it was done after four years and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions under Section 153C require incriminating material found during a search. The issue of whether the assessment was abated was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the transaction was a journal entry transferring an existing debt and not a fresh credit entry of funds during the relevant assessment year. Therefore, Section 68 was not applicable. The Tribunal also noted that the Revenue failed to provide cogent evidence to prove the transaction was bogus.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions under Section 153C require incriminating material found during a search. The issue of whether the assessment was abated was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding interest cost, following a co-ordinate bench decision. However, it allowed the appeal concerning commission and brokerage, also based on a previous tribunal ruling against the assessee.

The Tribunal held that telecommunication charges are not to be excluded from export turnover as they are related to software development services, not delivery. However, foreign currency expenses need to be examined for their nexus with technical services provided outside India.

The Tribunal noted that disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted if the assessee has not earned any exempt income. However, since it was not discernible from the record, the matter was remanded to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's business had commenced, citing previous ITAT orders in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal found sufficient evidence of business commencement and continuation, including land development agreements and project pipelines.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions under Section 153C require incriminating material found during a search. The issue of whether the assessment was abated was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the ULIP in question qualifies as a 'capital asset' under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the accretion on its surrender should be taxed under the head 'income from capital gains', not 'income from other sources'.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the authorities below needs to be confirmed. This is in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, which states that employee's contribution to PF/ESIC must be deposited within the due date prescribed by the respective Acts to be eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer's order was indeed passed beyond the limitation period, thus invalidating it. Regarding the reimbursement claim, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the negligence of the consultant and the principle of substantial justice. It held that when sales are genuine, the addition for bogus purchases should be limited to the profit element, not the entire purchase amount.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made under section 143(1) disallowing the late payment of employee's contribution to PF and ESIC is permissible. This is in line with the Supreme Court's ruling in the Checkmate Services case, which emphasizes timely deposit of employee contributions.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding interest cost, following a co-ordinate bench decision. However, it allowed the appeal concerning commission and brokerage, also based on a prior tribunal ruling. The addition on account of deemed rent was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Private Ltd. applies retrospectively, making the disallowance under Section 143(1) valid. Explanations to Sections 36(1)(va) and 43B are clarificatory, and the tax audit report disclosure now indicates a disallowance.

The assessee's counsel filed a letter withdrawing the appeal before the tribunal. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as infructuous due to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessments, additions could only be made if supported by incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found for the additions made, the additions were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to PF/ESI deposited after the due date under the relevant Acts is not allowable as a deduction. The expression 'month' refers to the month for which the salary was earned, not the month of disbursement.