ITAT Mumbai Judgments — June 2023

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 decided that interest on foreign currency loans to an AE was at arm's length, and corporate guarantee fees were partly allowed. Disallowance under Section 14A was rejected, and sales tax refunds and CER receipts were to be treated as capital receipts.

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

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 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 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 found the assessee's claim of not receiving notices to be untenable based on the CIT(A)'s order. However, as the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and not on merits, and the assessee had filed documents requiring verification, the case was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the income received by the assessee is not royalty as it pertains to publicly available information and does not involve copyright or patented articles. Consequently, no income is chargeable to tax in India in the absence of a permanent establishment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition. The differences were explained by factors such as service tax, timing differences in income reporting across assessment years, and income from export of services without TDS.

The Tribunal held that the income received by the assessee is not royalty as it pertains to publicly available information and does not involve copyright or patented articles. Consequently, no income is chargeable to tax in India in the absence of a permanent establishment.

The Tribunal found that while the entire withdrawn amount of Rs. 14.50 lakhs could not be considered available, it was also unlikely that all of it was spent. Therefore, a portion was estimated to be available.

The Tribunal held that the income received by the assessee is not royalty as it pertains to publicly available information and does not involve copyright or patented articles. Consequently, no income is chargeable to tax in India in the absence of a permanent establishment.

The Tribunal held that foreign tax credit is allowable when taxes are paid in the source country in accordance with the DTAA, even if there's a difference in interpretation between the two countries. The decision of the principal firm's case was followed.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made purely on estimations. This is supported by various High Court and Tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was unsustainable as it was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. In cases of unabated assessments, additions cannot be made without such material.

The Tribunal held that foreign tax credit is allowable when taxes are paid in the source country in accordance with the DTAA, even if there's a difference in interpretation between the two countries. The decision of the principal firm's case was followed.

The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) is relevant only when a co-operative bank claims deduction under Section 80P, not when a co-operative society invests in a co-operative bank. The interest earned from co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

The ITAT held that the reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated as they were based on a change of opinion without new material. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's claims for deduction of amalgamation expenses, expenditure on assets not owned by the assessee, and expenses on IPL tickets and meet and greet.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11, partly allowed appeals for AY 2011-12 to 2014-15, and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The decision was based on the specific facts and evidence presented for each assessment year and ground of appeal.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained solely on information received from foreign authorities without supporting evidence. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal found the addition unsustainable as it was based on assumptions and surmises rather than concrete evidence.

The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was levied has been deleted, the penalty cannot survive on its own. Therefore, the cancellation of the penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The ITAT held that the reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated as they were based on a change of opinion without new material. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's claims for deduction of amalgamation expenses, expenditure on assets not owned by the assessee, and expenses on IPL tickets and meet and greet.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition as no incriminating material was found during the search conducted on the assessee's premises. The addition was based on third-party information and an online portal, which is insufficient without corroborating evidence found during the assessee's search.

The ITAT held that the reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated as they were based on a change of opinion without new material. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's claims for deduction of amalgamation expenses, expenditure on assets not owned by the assessee, and expenses on IPL tickets and meet and greet.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) adjudicated an issue (set-off against Mumbai and Indore units) that was not before him, while failing to adjudicate the issue actually contested by the assessee (correct computation of Chandigarh unit's income). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was vitiated.

The Tribunal held that payments made to non-doctors for sales promotion cannot be disallowed. Regarding payments to doctors, the disallowance is to be confirmed based on Supreme Court rulings and amended provisions of Section 37(1). Expenses not related to doctors, like leave behind material and CME, are to be allowed after verification.

The Tribunal held that lump sum lease premium for long-term lease is not rent under Section 194-I, remanding the issue of additional premium for de novo adjudication. It also held that interest paid to MMRDA is exempt from TDS under Section 194-A.

The Tribunal held that lump sum lease premium for long-term lease is not rent under Section 194-I, but remanded the issue of additional premium for de novo adjudication. It also held that interest paid to MMRDA is exempt from TDS under Section 194-A.

The Tribunal held that lump sum lease premium for long-term lease is not rent under Section 194-I, but remanded the issue of additional premium for de novo adjudication. It also held that interest paid to MMRDA is exempt from TDS under Section 194-A.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11, partly allowed appeals for AY 2011-12 to 2014-15, and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The decision was based on the specific facts and evidence presented for each assessment year and ground of appeal.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11, partly allowed appeals for AY 2011-12 to 2014-15, and dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The decision was based on the specific facts and evidence presented for each assessment year and ground of appeal.

The Tribunal held that payments made to non-doctors for sales promotion expenses cannot be disallowed. It also directed the AO to allow depreciation on royalty expenses. Regarding Ind-AS adjustments, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as dividend income was offered to tax.