ITAT Mumbai Judgments — May 2023

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act, inserting a third proviso for a tolerance band between stamp duty value and sale consideration, is curative in nature. Therefore, the 5% tolerance limit is applicable for the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the dominant object of the assessee is not to earn profit in relation to trade, commerce, or business. The trust's activities, aimed at national interest and supporting exporters, were considered charitable, and thus, exemption under Section 11 was not liable to be declined.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered were advisory and did not involve making available technical knowledge or skills to the Indian hotel owners. Therefore, the fees were not taxable in India as 'fees for included services'.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient documentary evidence, including PAN, IT returns, bills, confirmations, and bank statements, to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the processing of the revised return under Section 143(1) by the CPC was not proper and bad in law. The CPC should have followed the due process of law, including intimating the assessee and seeking a response before making adjustments.

The Tribunal held that the existence of a dependent agency PE is tax neutral if the Indian agent is paid arm's length remuneration, which was not disputed by the revenue. Therefore, the business profits earned by the assessee had no tax implications in India.

The Tribunal held that the delay in disposing of the appeals was not attributable to the assessee and there was no change in circumstances. Therefore, the stay was extended.

The Tribunal held that the addition for alleged bogus purchases was partly confirmed by the CIT(A) and the issue of cash component in agricultural land purchase addition was not sustainable due to lack of corroborative evidence. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the addition for bogus long-term capital gains and alleged commission paid were not sustainable and deleted them. For the subsequent assessment year, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s finding that cash transactions indicated by mobile messages should be taxed in the hands of the employer, not the assessee.