ITAT Mumbai Judgments — August 2023

The Tribunal held that the remaining cash deposit of Rs. 2,31,739/- was plausible to be cash withdrawn by the assessee over time to meet medical expenses for his daughter. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for both assessment years. It deleted additions related to AIR information and interest under Section 234A. The issue of MAT credit and interest under Section 234C were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal found that taxing the same income across different assessment years and again based on the Settlement Commission's statement led to double taxation. Therefore, the appeals were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to apply a profit margin of 5% on the alleged bogus purchases and add it to the assessee's income, considering similar past decisions.

The Tribunal held that the transfer pricing adjustments were not sustainable, directing the AO to examine allowability under Section 40A(2). The issue of disallowance of loss on high seas sales was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication due to discrepancies in figures.

The Tribunal found that taxing the same income across different assessment years and again based on the Settlement Commission's statement led to double taxation. Therefore, the appeals were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found that taxing the same income across different assessment years and again based on the Settlement Commission's statement led to double taxation. Therefore, the appeals were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits. For just and proper decision and ends of justice, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not filed supporting documentary evidence. To adhere to principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the issues back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication based on evidence to be filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made if based on incriminating material found during search. Since no such material was unearthed for the years in question, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the revenue cannot simultaneously treat the assessee as an accommodation entry provider and a genuine trading concern. Therefore, additions based on estimated higher gross profit were deleted.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) order was passed on facts pertaining to another assessee and did not address the actual grounds of appeal. Therefore, the order was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had decided the appeal without dwelling into the merits of the case due to the assessee's non-appearance. Therefore, to ensure a just and proper decision, the case was remanded back to the Commissioner for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that conducting seminars for the benefit of the industry and general public falls under the advancement of objects of general public utility and is not an activity in the nature of trade, commerce, or business. Furthermore, the receipts from non-members did not exceed the 20% limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2(15).

The Tribunal found that taxing the same income across different assessment years and again based on the Settlement Commission's statement led to double taxation. Therefore, the appeals were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that for Section 14A disallowance, only investments yielding exempt income should be considered. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A is not to be added for computing book profit under Section 115JB. Finally, it upheld the deletion of depreciation disallowance based on prior year's consistent ruling.

The Tribunal found that taxing the same income across different assessment years and again based on the Settlement Commission's statement led to double taxation. Therefore, the appeals were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made if based on incriminating material found during search. Since no such material was unearthed for the years in question, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the AO's conclusion about the companies being shell entities was not elaborated with specific reasons. The CIT(A) had found that the assessee had provided loan confirmations, bank statements, and paid interest with TDS, and the AO failed to bring contrary material to doubt the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the commission income addition at 3% but directed the deletion of the addition for credit card expenses, as it amounted to double taxation. The Tribunal also ordered the Assessing Officer to share information with various authorities to investigate the money laundering racket.

The Tribunal observed that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-appearance. Considering the assessee's willingness to cooperate and the need for a just decision, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed a reply, but it was ignored by the AO due to not being signed. Therefore, the case was remanded to the AO to reconsider the submissions and provide a fresh opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made if based on incriminating material found during search. Since no such material was unearthed for the years in question, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that since substantive additions were already made in the hands of Praveen Kumar Jain (who controlled the assessee company), the protective addition in the hands of the assessee company was not sustainable. The CIT(A) erred in confirming this protective addition.

The Tribunal held that AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee in India for promoting its own manufactured products does not constitute an international transaction, especially in the absence of an express agreement with the Associated Enterprise (AE) to promote the AE's brand. Consequently, the TPO had no jurisdiction to determine the arm's length price for such expenditure.

The Tribunal upheld the commission income addition at 3% but directed the deletion of the addition for credit card expenses, as it amounted to double taxation. The Tribunal also ordered the Assessing Officer to share information with various authorities to investigate the money laundering racket.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not adequately served with notices by the lower authorities, and thus, was not provided with a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the assessment and appeal orders were passed ex-parte without proper service.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was silent on the issue of the belated filing of the return. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering this specific issue.

The Tribunal held that once a revised return is filed and accepted, it supersedes the original return, and the concept of delay in filing Form 67 does not apply. The assessee is entitled to foreign tax credit.

The Tribunal held that the sale consideration received on the sale of shares cannot be assessed as an unexplained cash credit under section 68. It noted that the AO did not establish the assessee's involvement in price rigging and that the purchase of shares in an earlier year was accepted. The sale transactions were conducted through the stock exchange via registered brokers, with payments through banking channels.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for both assessment years. It deleted additions related to AIR information and interest under Section 234A. The issue of MAT credit and interest under Section 234C were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal found that the CIT dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits due to the assessee's non-compliance. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal confirmed additions of unexplained cash deposits for AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09, stating the assessee failed to provide substantiating material. Appeals arising from original assessment orders were partly allowed, while appeals from reassessment orders were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the receipt of rent based on a valid agreement cannot be rejected, even if the lessee did not utilize the land. The assessee's role was to lease the land, and the non-performance by the LLP was not the assessee's concern. Therefore, the rental income should be treated as agricultural income.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAB is not mandatory and requires examination on merits. The confirmed additions did not fall within the definition of 'undisclosed income' as per the Explanation to Section 271AAB.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on a change of opinion. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow consultancy payments as they were considered part of stock-in-trade and not income from house property, and that Section 14A cannot be invoked if no exempt income was earned.

The Tribunal held that the AO had examined the issue of CSR expenditure and the 80G deduction claimed in respect thereof during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal dismissed the transfer pricing grounds as not pressed. It partly allowed the assessee's appeal on Section 14A disallowance for statistical purposes due to non-compliance by the AO. The Revenue's appeal regarding interest expenditure was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation for the share transactions, including contract notes and Demat statements. The Tribunal also noted the absence of any SEBI order against the assessee or its brokers and followed a jurisdictional High Court judgment on similar facts.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on a change of opinion. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow consultancy payments as they were considered part of stock-in-trade and not income from house property, and that Section 14A cannot be invoked if no exempt income was earned.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order regarding the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A. It also directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute and assess the gross annual lettable value of unsold inventory, subjecting it to standard deduction.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order regarding the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A. It also directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute and assess the gross annual lettable value of unsold inventory, subjecting it to standard deduction.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order regarding the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A. It also directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute and assess the gross annual lettable value of unsold inventory, subjecting it to standard deduction.

The Tribunal held that Section 79 of the Income Tax Act is not applicable if the change in shareholding is between entities within the same group, and the overall beneficial ownership of more than 51% voting power remains with the same group. Therefore, the disallowance of brought forward losses was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not legally justified in altering the full value of consideration declared by the assessee. Since the sale consideration was higher than the Fair Market Value (FMV) computed under the Net Asset Value method, the AO's intervention was unwarranted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of natural justice, finding that the assessee was not aware of the proceedings or the order due to communication issues. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that non-consideration of a binding Supreme Court decision constitutes a mistake apparent from the record, rectifiable under Section 254(2). The Supreme Court's ruling that judicial decisions act retrospectively means the 'Checkmate Services' decision applies to the current case.

The Tribunal held that the interest on unsecured loans was allowable as the loans were old, disclosed, and subject to TDS, with no fresh loans taken during the year. The interest on housing loans was also allowed as the property was let out and supported by evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the exemption claim under Section 10(23C)(via) without following the Bombay High Court's directions. It also directed the AO to allow a portion of the gratuity provision as application of income and to consider the carry forward of deficit.