ITAT Mumbai Judgments — May 2023

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, finding that IIBF's activities, particularly earning royalty from publishing houses, indicated it was not solely existing for educational purposes. The Tribunal emphasized that the condition of existing solely for education must be met each year.

The Tribunal held that IIBF's modified functioning, particularly earning royalty from publishing houses for its course material, indicated it was not existing solely for educational purposes. Therefore, the denial of exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid as the AO had reason to believe income had escaped assessment. It also held that the income of INR 1,00,000 should be taxed in AY 2006-07, but clarified that it should not be taxed twice and the assessee could seek a refund for the tax paid in AY 2007-08.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) is applicable when the agreement and registration dates differ, and part payment is made on or before the agreement date. The addition was restricted to the difference based on the DVO's valuation on the allotment date.

The Tribunal held that delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC is not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. For the disallowance of interest, the tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding one NBFC and remanded the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication. The additional ground regarding retrospective applicability of a 30% disallowance was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that while the sale consideration was determined by the parties, the disputed nature of the assets made it a distress sale. Therefore, the Assessing Officer should have referred the matter to the valuation officer under Section 50C(2).

The Tribunal held that IIBF's modified functioning, particularly earning royalty from publishing houses for its course material, indicated it was not existing solely for educational purposes. Therefore, the denial of exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) was upheld.

The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., stating that employee's contributions to PF/ESIC must be deposited by the due date prescribed in the respective Acts to be eligible for deduction. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that cooperative banks are a species of cooperative societies and therefore, interest earned by the assessee from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Totagars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. was distinguished as it dealt with Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and not Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the TDS credit even if it does not appear in their Form 26AS, especially when the deductor refused to rectify their TDS return. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant the TDS credit to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the TDS credit even if it does not appear in their Form 26AS, especially when the deductor refused to rectify their TDS return. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant the TDS credit to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the submissions and documents filed by the assessee. Due to insufficient material on record to definitively resolve the issue, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal on grounds related to expenditure on spouses accompanying employees, rural development administration, and voluntary retirement payments, following previous consistent rulings. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, indicating that some of its grounds were upheld while others were not.

The Tribunal held that the reopening under Section 147 was invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to record specific reasons pertaining to the assessee and link the information received to the assessee. The addition made was deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal on grounds related to expenditure on spouses accompanying employees, rural development administration, and voluntary retirement payments, following previous consistent rulings. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed, indicating that some of its grounds were upheld while others were not.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since the additions were not based on such material, they are liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal restored both issues (house property income and DTAA benefits) to the AO for fresh examination. The assessee was directed to furnish necessary details and documents, including the Tax Residency Certificate for AY 2016-17.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act without issuing the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) is bad in law. Consequently, the proceedings initiated under Section 147 were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act without issuing the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) is bad in law. Consequently, the proceedings initiated under Section 147 were quashed.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since the additions were not based on such material, they are liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since the additions were not based on such material, they are liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty, stating that penalty cannot be levied when additions are made on an estimated basis, especially when the assessee provided documentary evidence and made payments through banking channels. The CIT(A)'s order was confirmed.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty, stating that penalty cannot be levied when additions are made on an estimated basis, especially when the assessee provided documentary evidence and made payments through banking channels. The CIT(A)'s order was confirmed.

The Tribunal restored both issues (house property income and DTAA benefits) to the AO for fresh examination. The assessee was directed to furnish necessary details and documents, including the Tax Residency Certificate for AY 2016-17.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the documents submitted by the assessee on merits. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the waiver of a loan, which was capital in nature and not a trading liability, does not fall under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act. Furthermore, Section 28(iv) was not applicable as the benefit was in the form of cash, not a non-monetary perquisite.

The Tribunal found the assessee's apprehension that the 'dismissed' order would be misinterpreted to be unfounded. However, to allay this perception, the Tribunal directed the AO to pass an order giving effect to the CIT(A) order and vacate the demand.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and remitted the issue back to the AO to verify the payments. The AO is to allow the ESI and PF payments made on or before the due date.

The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the non-genuine purchases, considering it as the profit embedded therein. The ITAT found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and upheld the restricted disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the waiver of a loan, which was capital in nature and not a trading liability, does not fall under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act. Furthermore, Section 28(iv) was not applicable as the benefit was in the form of cash, not a non-monetary perquisite.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee raised a technical issue regarding the CPC's procedure, the addition made was substantively correct based on Supreme Court decisions. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that Section 69A is not applicable to the assessee's case as the cash received was voluntary contributions. Therefore, the addition under Section 115BBE was deleted. The Tribunal also found that Section 115BBC was not applicable to the religious trust.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made additions partly on the grounds for which reassessment was initiated, thus dismissing grounds related to reopening. Additions for cash expenses and employee's PF/ESIC contributions were confirmed based on lack of substantiation and Supreme Court rulings.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made additions partly on the grounds for which reassessment was initiated, thus dismissing grounds related to reopening. Additions for cash expenses and employee's PF/ESIC contributions were confirmed based on lack of substantiation and Supreme Court rulings.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made additions partly on the grounds for which reassessment was initiated, thus dismissing grounds related to reopening. Additions for cash expenses and employee's PF/ESIC contributions were confirmed based on lack of substantiation and Supreme Court rulings.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made additions partly on the grounds for which reassessment was initiated, thus dismissing grounds related to reopening. Additions for cash expenses and employee's PF/ESIC contributions were confirmed based on lack of substantiation and Supreme Court rulings.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made additions partly on the grounds for which reassessment was initiated, thus dismissing grounds related to reopening. Additions for cash expenses and employee's PF/ESIC contributions were confirmed based on lack of substantiation and Supreme Court rulings.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and accepted the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal also emphasized the rule of consistency, as the same agreement and revenue sharing model were accepted as capital gains in prior years.

The Tribunal held that an effluent treatment plant is considered a water treatment plant eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4), as clarified by CBDT circulars. The assessee's process of treating effluent water to produce chemicals was found to fall within the scope of an eligible infrastructure facility.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the issue of excluding 'Action Construction Equipment Limited' as a comparable, directing its inclusion. It also allowed the appeal regarding the denial of deduction under Section 35(2AB), directing the deletion of the disallowance. The ground regarding the turnover filter was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not establish a direct link between the assessee and the alleged misuse of CCM by brokers. The information received was general and did not specifically implicate the assessee or her broker in fraudulent activities. Therefore, the reopening of assessment and the consequent disallowance were not justified.

The Tribunal held that once the AO accepted the returned income without any addition, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be levied. The AO's satisfaction for initiating penalty was also found to be lacking application of mind and not in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer allowed the benefit of Section 115BAA in the scrutiny assessment order, the appeal filed by the revenue against the CIT(A)'s order (which had directed the AO to condone the delay in filing Form 10IC) had become infructuous.

The Tribunal directed the Jurisdictional AO to verify the latest Form 26AS submitted by the assessee and grant the refund based on it, acknowledging the mismatch was the sole grievance.

The tribunal held that an appeal against an order under section 154 read with section 143(1) is maintainable before the CIT(A). It further directed the AO to recalculate the interest under sections 234A and 234B after considering the payments made by the assessee and providing an opportunity for substantiation.

The Tribunal held that Section 43B of the Income Tax Act mandates allowance of interest on actual payment basis for loans from public financial institutions. Since the interest was effectively paid by the ARC and TFCI is a public financial institution, the disallowance was incorrect.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed in confusion and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to be given a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the monetary limits for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the claimed expenses could not be allowed under the heads 'Income from House Property', 'Capital Gains', or 'Income from Other Sources'. However, it restored the matter to the AO for verification of the assessee's claim concerning partnership firms.