ITAT Mumbai Judgments — July 2023

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition, as the property was acquired through a transparent auction process from a bank in liquidation.

The Tribunal held that the AO's view in allowing the deduction was a plausible view, consistent with previous tribunal decisions. Therefore, the PCIT's revisionary power under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable because the necessary approval from the Adjudicating Authority for the liquidator to file the appeal was not on record. Furthermore, the appeal was not signed by the Liquidator after the liquidation process began.

The Tribunal held that since the share transactions were conducted through a registered broker on a recognized stock exchange, reflected in the Demat account, and supported by documentation, the AO was not justified in treating the sale proceeds as unexplained income. The Tribunal relied on jurisdictional High Court decisions in similar cases.

The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions in the hands of Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain were upheld by a coordinate bench, the protective additions made in the assessee's hands were unsustainable and directed to be deleted. However, the AO was directed to revive the additions if the substantive additions in Mr. Jain's case were deleted in further appeals.

The Tribunal held that since the original addition was made without jurisdiction, the penalty levied based on that addition is unsustainable. Therefore, the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A) is upheld.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not sustainable as the balance sheet was found to be fabricated and M/s. SGF Enterprises had incurred the expenditure. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was found to be correct.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal because the memorandum of appeal did not contain the grounds challenging the CIT(A)'s order. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek recall of the order once the grounds are available.

The Tribunal held that the issue of exemption under Section 11 and the claim of expenditure needed to be decided afresh by the AO. The AO must first verify the Section 12A registration and then examine the expenditure claim, providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as it had become academic because the Assessing Officer did not pass an order within the prescribed limitation period after the Section 263 direction. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective and invalid because it did not clearly state the specific charge against the assessee. Consequently, the penalty levied by the AO was considered bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and did not consider the material placed on record. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal restricted the addition on account of purchases to an estimated gross profit of 4% of the turnover. The addition on account of capital introduction was found to be duly proved and was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was void ab initio due to the AO lacking valid jurisdiction, as no proper transfer order under Section 127(2) was issued. Consequently, the additions made were quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of interest expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) because the assessee failed to furnish the required documentary evidence to demonstrate that the deductee NBFCs had complied with the conditions stipulated in the first proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act.

The Tribunal found that a rectification application filed by the assessee on a similar issue was pending. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after verification. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, dismissing the assessee's appeals. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations for the bogus purchases and did not appear for the hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had paid the amount through banking channels and entered into cancellation deeds. Since the amount was capitalized and not claimed as expenditure, the disallowance was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions in the hands of Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain were upheld by a coordinate bench, the protective additions made in the assessee's hands were unsustainable and directed to be deleted. However, the AO was directed to revive the additions if the substantive additions in Mr. Jain's case were deleted in further appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appellant's claim for TDS credit required examination and verification. Accordingly, all issues were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the audit report, considering the death of a key director and the fact that the belatedly filed report was available to the AO during assessment. The penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings. This was because the Assessing Officer failed to provide the reasons recorded and approval obtained for issuing the notice under Section 148, rendering the proceedings void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a credit co-operative society providing credit facilities only to its members, cannot be classified as a co-operative bank. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80P is allowable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a credit co-operative society providing credit facilities only to its members, cannot be classified as a co-operative bank. Therefore, the deduction under Section 80P is allowable.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to take appropriate action to give effect to the previous ITAT order by disposing of the assessee's application within three months.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard and did not properly consider the assessee's submissions and the filed Form 67. Therefore, the case was remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to satisfy the primary condition of acquiring a residential house within the prescribed period under Section 54. The Tribunal found that the transaction was more of parking money with a related party and that the initial allotment letter was not acted upon, with the ultimate transaction being on different terms and property.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte without proper adjudication due to the assessee's failure to provide documents. To ensure substantial justice, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee depositing a sum in the National Relief Fund.

The Tribunal held that Section 69C of the Income Tax Act was not applicable as the source of expenditure (LC amounts from banks) was explained. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to take appropriate action to give effect to the previous ITAT order by disposing of the assessee's application within three months.

The Tribunal found that the impounded Excel file was from Glencore Agriculture India Private Limited, and evidence supported the appellant's claim that 'Agritrade' referred to AISPL. The Revenue failed to discharge its onus to link the transactions to the appellant.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee due to the ongoing moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. The assessee was granted liberty to refile the appeal or seek recall of the order once the moratorium period ends.

The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions in the hands of Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain were upheld by a coordinate bench, the protective additions made in the assessee's hands were unsustainable and directed to be deleted. However, the AO was directed to revive the additions if the substantive additions in Mr. Jain's case were deleted in further appeals.

The Tribunal held that Section 79 of the Income Tax Act was not applicable as the change in shareholding was between entities within the same group, and the ultimate beneficial ownership remained unchanged. The addition of share premium under Section 68 was also set aside as it pertains to the creditor's identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction, not the assessee's capacity to charge a premium.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, dismissing the assessee's appeals. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations for the bogus purchases and did not appear for the hearing.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF/ESI made beyond the due date prescribed in the respective Acts is valid. Such an adjustment is permissible under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte without proper adjudication due to the assessee's failure to provide documents. To ensure substantial justice, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee depositing a sum in the National Relief Fund.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard and did not properly consider the assessee's submissions and the filed Form 67. Therefore, the case was remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions in the hands of Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain were upheld by a coordinate bench, the protective additions made in the assessee's hands were unsustainable and directed to be deleted. However, the AO was directed to revive the additions if the substantive additions in Mr. Jain's case were deleted in further appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's case fell under the exceptions notified by the CBDT, making the third proviso to Section 10(38) and the conditions under Section 112A not applicable in a manner that denied the exemption. The Ld. CIT(A) was therefore correct in deleting the additions.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on several grounds, following a coordinate bench's decision on identical issues for a prior assessment year. The revenue's cross-appeal was dismissed.

The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to the exempt income earned, i.e., Rs. 9,55,880, following High Court and Supreme Court precedents. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income.

The Tribunal held that a Co-operative Bank, despite being excluded from Section 80P benefits itself, remains a 'Co-operative Society' for the purpose of Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, interest earned by a Co-operative Society from investments in a Co-operative Bank is eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal held that a Co-operative Bank, despite being excluded from Section 80P benefits itself, remains a 'Co-operative Society' for the purpose of Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, interest earned by a Co-operative Society from investments in a Co-operative Bank is eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from its investments with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The CIT(A)'s order upholding the disallowance was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a Co-Operative Housing Society required to be audited under the Maharashtra State Co-Operative Act, was entitled to a later due date for filing its return of income. Since the return was filed before this extended due date, the deductions under Section 80P were allowable.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) due to the lack of proper opportunity of hearing for the assessee. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh after hearing the assessee and considering relevant submissions.

The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions in the hands of Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain were upheld by a coordinate bench, the protective additions made in the assessee's hands were unsustainable and directed to be deleted. However, the AO was directed to revive the additions if the substantive additions in Mr. Jain's case were deleted in further appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) decided the appeal ex-parte without proper adjudication due to the assessee's failure to provide documents. To ensure substantial justice, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee depositing a sum in the National Relief Fund.

The Tribunal followed a Special Bench decision which held that computation under Section 115JB(2) should not involve the computation under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 14A should not be included for computing book profit under Section 115JB.