ITAT Mumbai Judgments — June 2023

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer under sections 68 and 69C were not justified, as no incriminating material was found during the search to support the theory of bogus capital gains. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions and SEBI orders that exonerated the assessee from price manipulation.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner was not justified in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263. The reassessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue as the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and the Commissioner failed to provide material to show an error.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the AO followed due procedure. It also upheld the disallowance of interest payment under Section 40(a)(ia) as the assessee failed to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer under sections 68 and 69C were not justified, as no incriminating material was found during the search to support the theory of bogus capital gains. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions and SEBI orders that exonerated the assessee from price manipulation.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's order was passed beyond the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, the subsequent assessment order passed by the AO was also considered void and bad in law due to being barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer's order was passed beyond the period of limitation and was therefore bad in law. Consequently, the final assessment order was also deemed invalid and quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the AO followed due procedure. It also upheld the disallowance of interest payment under Section 40(a)(ia) as the assessee failed to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the AO followed due procedure. It also upheld the disallowance of interest payment under Section 40(a)(ia) as the assessee failed to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the AO followed due procedure. It also upheld the disallowance of interest payment under Section 40(a)(ia) as the assessee failed to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer under sections 68 and 69C were not justified, as no incriminating material was found during the search to support the theory of bogus capital gains. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions and SEBI orders that exonerated the assessee from price manipulation.

The Tribunal held that certain transfer pricing adjustments were partly allowed, while others were dismissed. Issues related to Section 14A disallowances and TDS were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's order was passed beyond the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, the subsequent assessment order passed by the AO was also considered void and bad in law due to being barred by limitation.

The Tribunal followed the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., holding that loss on revaluation of securities held till maturity is a revenue expenditure. Consequently, certain grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal followed the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., holding that loss on revaluation of securities held till maturity is a revenue expenditure. Consequently, certain grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that certain transfer pricing adjustments were partly allowed, while others were dismissed. Issues related to Section 14A disallowances and TDS were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the AO followed due procedure. It also upheld the disallowance of interest payment under Section 40(a)(ia) as the assessee failed to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal held that certain transfer pricing adjustments were partly allowed, while others were dismissed. Issues related to Section 14A disallowances and TDS were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, condoned the delay in filing the appeal, and restored the issue back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. The Tribunal emphasized the need for natural justice and fair play.

The Tribunal held that Landfill Project-II and Incinerator Project-I and II are distinct and separate undertakings eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA. The issue of advances received from customers was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 144C(1) by not issuing a draft assessment order before passing the final assessment order. This procedural lapse vitiated the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee for corporate charges and software usage did not constitute royalty or fees for included services under the India-Canada DTAA. This was based on the principle that a limited right to use software without transferring copyright or exploitation rights does not attract tax.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer under sections 68 and 69C were not justified, as no incriminating material was found during the search to support the theory of bogus capital gains. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions and SEBI orders that exonerated the assessee from price manipulation.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not consider the DRP's directions regarding prior period expenses. The issue of prior period expenses was remitted back to the AO for verification and allowance in accordance with law.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the AO followed due procedure. It also upheld the disallowance of interest payment under Section 40(a)(ia) as the assessee failed to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity by the AO to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditor. Therefore, the matter was set aside back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that certain transfer pricing adjustments were partly allowed, while others were dismissed. Issues related to Section 14A disallowances and TDS were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal agreed in principle with the disallowance of belated deposits but noted that excess amounts were deposited in certain months. These excess deposits should be adjusted against subsequent months' contributions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal against the intimation. It deleted the disallowance under section 40A(7) as it was voluntarily made by the assessee and then again by the CPC, leading to double disallowance. The disallowance under section 36(1)(va) was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal against the intimation. It deleted the disallowance under section 40A(7) as it was voluntarily made by the assessee and then again by the CPC, leading to double disallowance. The disallowance under section 36(1)(va) was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form No. 67 cannot be a ground for disallowing the Foreign Tax Credit. The provisions of Rule 128(9) are to be read as directory and not mandatory.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present her case before the CIT(A). This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 1000/- to the income tax department.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses for earning exempt income was not justified if the investment was made out of surplus interest-free funds. The cross-objection was dismissed due to an inordinate delay without sufficient cause.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be recomputed considering only investments that yielded exempt income. It also upheld the assessee's claim that sales tax incentives are capital receipts. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding disallowance of interest expenses for book profit computation.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the AO followed due procedure. It also upheld the disallowance of interest payment under Section 40(a)(ia) as the assessee failed to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal held that the TNMM was the most appropriate method for benchmarking the international transactions, overturning the TPO/DRP's decision to use the CUP method. The impugned transfer pricing adjustments were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal. The Department did not object to this request.

The Tribunal held that set-off of business loss against other heads is permissible under Section 71 of the Act. Regarding dividend exemption, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the supporting documents and allow the claim if substantiated.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted all mandated documents and complied with notices. The CIT(Exemption)'s order did not specify which documents were missing. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding leave encashment as infructuous. It also dismissed the ground related to the non-exclusion of provision for doubtful debts under Section 115JB, finding it identical to a previously dismissed issue.

The Tribunal held that certain transfer pricing adjustments were partly allowed, while others were dismissed. Issues related to Section 14A disallowances and TDS were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for the deduction under Section 54F. It found that the assessee did not own more than one residential house property on the relevant date, and also clarified the dates of transfer for the properties involved.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus under Section 68 by providing details of the loan and its source. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the addition under Section 68 could not be sustained. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the restricted disallowance under Section 14A.

The Tribunal held that certain grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments were partly allowed based on previous decisions. Disallowances under Section 14A and issues regarding TDS and incorrect income assessment were remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the CPC under Section 143(1) is permissible as the employee's contribution to PF/ESI was not deposited within the due date prescribed by the respective Acts. This is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the payments received by the assessee for corporate charges and software usage did not constitute royalty or fees for included services under the India-Canada DTAA. This was based on the principle that a limited right to use software without transferring copyright or exploitation rights does not attract tax.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not appearing. Relying on a Supreme Court judgment, it held that the assessment order should be set aside and the matter restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal directed the AO to re-work the depreciation allowable on the Film Projector at 15% on the revised WDV, following its own previous orders for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the commission expenses, linking them to sales. However, the disallowance of motor car depreciation was confirmed based on the assessee's voluntary disallowance in the audit report.

The Tribunal held that provisions for bad and doubtful debts created prior to April 1, 2006, are not subject to Section 36(1)(viia) and can be claimed as a deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) if conditions are met. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner was not justified in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263. The reassessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue as the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and the Commissioner failed to provide material to show an error.