ITAT Mumbai Judgments — May 2023

The Tribunal held that since no additions were made to the returned income, the issue of validity of proceedings under section 153C was academic and had no impact on the assessed income for the years under appeal. The grounds raised were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that since no additions were made to the returned income, the issue of validity of proceedings under section 153C was academic and had no impact on the assessed income for the years under appeal. The grounds raised were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that since a coordinate bench had already directed a fresh assessment by the AO, the impugned order of the CIT(A) confirming the original additions was rendered infructuous. The grounds raised on merits were left open.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was set aside and remanded for a fresh assessment, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) at this stage does not survive. The Assessing Officer is at liberty to take a fresh call on penalty after the fresh assessment is framed.

The Tribunal held that since no additions were made to the returned income, the issue of validity of proceedings under section 153C was academic and had no impact on the assessed income for the years under appeal. The grounds raised were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned. It also held that book profit under Section 115JB should be computed without resorting to Section 14A. The Tribunal allowed the amended provision of Section 40(a)(ia) to be applied from AY 2015-16 onwards.

The Tribunal held that while the initial rejection of the claim by the CPC was not a mistake, the assessee should not be deprived of eligible exemptions. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the exemption claim.

The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned. It also held that book profit under Section 115JB should be computed without resorting to Section 14A. The Tribunal allowed the amended provision of Section 40(a)(ia) to be applied from AY 2015-16 onwards.

The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned. It also held that book profit under Section 115JB should be computed without resorting to Section 14A. The Tribunal allowed the amended provision of Section 40(a)(ia) to be applied from AY 2015-16 onwards.

The Tribunal decided that the assessee does not have a Permanent Establishment in India. Therefore, the income earned by the assessee is not taxable in India as per the provisions of the India-UK tax treaty.

The Tribunal held that a return filed under section 153A, in cases of abated assessment, should be considered a 'regular return'. Therefore, the assessee is eligible to carry forward the short-term capital loss claimed in the revised return.

The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned. It also held that book profit under Section 115JB should be computed without resorting to Section 14A. The Tribunal allowed the amended provision of Section 40(a)(ia) to be applied from AY 2015-16 onwards.

The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned. It also held that book profit under Section 115JB should be computed without resorting to Section 14A. The Tribunal allowed the amended provision of Section 40(a)(ia) to be applied from AY 2015-16 onwards.

The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of exempt income earned. It also held that book profit under Section 115JB should be computed without resorting to Section 14A. The Tribunal allowed the amended provision of Section 40(a)(ia) to be applied from AY 2015-16 onwards.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by providing purchase bills, bank statements, delivery challans, stock registers, and audited books of accounts. The addition was based on an ad-hoc estimate of GP rate without independent inquiry by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by providing purchase bills, bank statements, delivery challans, and stock registers. The addition was based on an ad-hoc estimate of GP rate without independent inquiry by the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed exempt income earned. The retrospective application of the Explanation to Section 14A was also rejected based on judicial precedent.

The Tribunal held that the lease rental income received by the assessee on leasing of alloys cannot be treated as royalty, following its own previous decisions on identical issues for earlier assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable. The AO had correctly referred the international transaction to the TPO, and the AO is bound by the TPO's determination. Prior to Finance Act 2022, TPO's orders were not subject to revision under Section 263 by the PCIT.

The Tribunal held that the right of appeal is a statutory right and cannot be denied due to procedural defects, especially when the delay in updating records was on the part of the Department. The assessee cannot be penalized for the Department's inaction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the impugned order ex-parte without providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the order was set aside to be decided afresh.

The Tribunal held that the waiver of working capital loan is taxable under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, following a jurisdictional High Court decision. However, the taxability of the interest and legal charges component was remitted to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order for the relevant year had been set aside and remanded for de novo adjudication. Since the assessment order had not attained finality, the penalty order was also remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the transfer pricing adjustment. It found that the assessee's segment margin of 22% was substantially higher than the comparable companies' margin of 13.57%, and the revenue did not challenge the chosen method (TNMM) or comparability.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified on any of the three disallowances. The disallowance of Section 10A deduction was on technical grounds, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was a statutory disallowance, and the classification of expenditure was a debatable issue. Therefore, these did not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. has held that employee contributions must be deposited before the due date specified under the relevant Act. The Tribunal remitted the issue to the AO to verify if the payment was made before the due date and if the delay was due to technical banking issues, and to bifurcate employer's contribution.

The Tribunal had previously quashed the assessment order dated January 31, 2017, on grounds of limitation. Since the rectification order was based on this quashed assessment order, the proceedings under Section 154 were rendered non-est.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESI made after the statutory due dates is permissible under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Private Limited. The adjustment should be restricted to the employee's contribution.

The Tribunal held that the corpus amount received by the assessee is a capital receipt and not taxable as income. Similarly, the rent received for alternative accommodation is also considered a capital receipt due to hardship caused by displacement.

The Tribunal held that provisions for service coupons, calculated based on the trend of the last 5 years and the occurrence rate of coupon surrender, constitute a scientific method. Following its own prior decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that provisions for service coupons, calculated based on the trend of the last 5 years and the occurrence rate of coupon surrender, constitute a scientific method. Following its own prior decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment were vague and lacked application of mind. The AO failed to establish that the funds in the foreign bank account represented income chargeable to tax in India, especially considering the assessee's non-resident status.

The ITAT found that the assessee was not provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A), as the appeal was dismissed ex-parte. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order to decide the appeal afresh.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's order was passed one day beyond the prescribed limitation period and was therefore bad in law. Consequently, the final assessment order, which relied on the invalid TPO order and was also passed beyond its limitation period, was also held to be bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee for granting access to its database do not constitute 'royalty' under the India-UK DTAA. The assessee was found to not have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The AO's disallowance was therefore incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside to be decided afresh on merits.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment were vague and lacked application of mind. The AO failed to establish that the funds in the foreign bank account represented income chargeable to tax in India, especially considering the assessee's non-resident status.

The Tribunal observed that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 for filing appeals before the ITAT. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal restored both issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. For the remuneration disallowance, it was to be decided in light of a previous Tribunal order. For unsecured loans, the Assessing Officer was to consider the documents furnished by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The AO's disallowance was therefore incorrect.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not maintainable because the assessee company was undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and a moratorium had been invoked. The appeals were not filed by the authorized Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not maintainable because the assessee company was undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and a moratorium had been invoked. The appeals were not filed by the authorized Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not maintainable because the assessee company was undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and a moratorium had been invoked. The appeals were not filed by the authorized Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as not maintainable because the assessee company was undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and a moratorium had been invoked. The appeals were not filed by the authorized Interim Resolution Professional (IRP).

The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to PF and ESI paid after the due date is not eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. was followed.

The Tribunal held that RPM is the most appropriate method for a pure distributor. It found that the TPO's rejection of RPM based on advertising expenses was not tenable as no specific value addition by the assessee was established. The matter was restored to the TPO for re-determination of ALP under RPM.

The Tribunal decided that the project administration costs and market data charges should be examined in light of the India-US DTAA. For AY 2017-18, issues regarding interest, carried forward losses, and penalty proceedings were addressed.

The tribunal held that the interest income directly credited to reserves, as per statutory requirements, is also eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). This is because the interest is earned from a co-operative bank and is of the same nature as the interest allowed as deduction when credited to the profit and loss account.