ITAT Mumbai Judgments — August 2023

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 found that the CIT(A) passed the order without considering the assessee's submissions. While the Covid period argument for later dates was not accepted, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 held that while there is no specific provision for adjusting refunds, the principle of fairness and equity, as reflected in the explanation to Section 140A, suggests that refunds should be adjusted against interest first. The Tribunal followed its own precedents in the assessee's case.

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 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 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 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 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 filing of Form 67 is a directory requirement and not mandatory. Since the assessee filed a revised return within the due date and it was accepted, the claim for additional FTC should be allowed.

The ITAT admitted additional evidence sought by the assessee and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity of being heard. This was done to impart justice and decide the issues comprehensively.

The Tribunal held that while there was a delay in compliance, the assessee ultimately complied with the notice under section 142(1) and furnished all required details. Therefore, a penalty under section 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance on the appointed date was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions are not sustainable without 'incriminating material'. However, for pending assessments, additions can be made based on information available, not necessarily requiring 'incriminating material'. The appeal for AY 2016-17 was remanded for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 5500/- in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund and cooperating with the proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 56(2)(vii) is not sustainable if the difference between the fair market value and the sale consideration is less than 10%. The Tribunal found that based on the DVO's report, the average valuation of comparable properties was within this 10% limit.

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions are not sustainable without 'incriminating material'. However, for pending assessments, additions can be made based on information available, not necessarily requiring 'incriminating material'. The appeal for AY 2016-17 was remanded for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal held that Section 43CA is applicable for AY 2014-15. However, considering the assessee's claim that the property was built for a specific community with restrictions, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer to refer the valuation to the District Valuation Officer (DVO).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, especially when principles of natural justice are invoked. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remitted back for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal upheld the authorities below in establishing the purchases as bogus. However, it restricted the addition to the profit element embedded in such purchases, reducing the addition from 12.5% to 5% of the bogus purchase amount.

The Tribunal held that Section 44ADA applies to specific qualified professions, which the assessee, a 10th/matriculation pass, did not possess. Therefore, the provisions of Section 44ADA were not applicable to the assessee's consultancy income, and the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that Section 153(7) mandates that if an order was received before June 1, 2016, the AO must give effect to it by March 31, 2017. Since the AO gave effect to the order after June 1, 2016, the assessee was entitled to interest under Section 244A(1A).

The Tribunal upheld the authorities below in establishing the purchases as bogus. However, it restricted the addition to the profit element embedded in such purchases, reducing the addition from 12.5% to 5% of the bogus purchase amount.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) was vitiated in law. The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) via Finance Act 2021 is prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question. The assessee had complied with the provisions by depositing the contributions before the due date of filing the return.

The Tribunal held that Section 153(7) mandates that if an order was received before June 1, 2016, the AO must give effect to it by March 31, 2017. Since the AO gave effect to the order after June 1, 2016, the assessee was entitled to interest under Section 244A(1A).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to decide an appeal for want of prosecution without deciding it on merits. The dismissal of the appeal without granting an adequate opportunity of being heard renders the order unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that Section 153(7) mandates that if an order was received before June 1, 2016, the AO must give effect to it by March 31, 2017. Since the AO gave effect to the order after June 1, 2016, the assessee was entitled to interest under Section 244A(1A).

The Tribunal dismissed the ground regarding the opportunity of being heard as not pressed. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat rental income as business income, as the assessee was not the owner of the property. The issue of notional interest on security deposit was remanded to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid. The reasons for reopening were not supplied within a reasonable time, and the objections raised by the assessee were disposed of in a non-speaking order. Furthermore, the AO relied on borrowed satisfaction from the DGIT (Investigation).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 5500/- in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund and cooperating with the proceedings.

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions are not sustainable without 'incriminating material'. However, for pending assessments, additions can be made based on information available, not necessarily requiring 'incriminating material'. The appeal for AY 2016-17 was remanded for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal, respectfully following the Apex Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., affirmed the disallowance. The late deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESIC is not allowable as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that for completed assessments, additions are not sustainable without 'incriminating material'. However, for pending assessments, additions can be made based on information available, not necessarily requiring 'incriminating material'. The appeal for AY 2016-17 was remanded for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not adequately consider the movement in loan and FD accounts, nor the alternate claim for business expenditure. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had subsequently deducted and paid the TDS and filed a revised return, which was not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the AO was directed to allow the claim after verification.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked elaborate findings and did not call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. Therefore, to ensure justice and fair play, the issue of interest and other expenses was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked elaborate findings and did not call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. Therefore, to ensure justice and fair play, the issue of interest and other expenses was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present its case. The Tribunal also imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000 on the assessee for its lackadaisical approach.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence to support the claim that the PMGKY declaration was from 'on-money' receipts. The Tribunal also addressed other additions made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that notional rent on unsold stock-in-trade can be assessed under 'Income from house property' for the period prior to AY 2018-19, following a coordinate bench decision. However, the AO's method of estimating the annual letting value (ALV) at 8.5% of investment was not justified.

The Tribunal held that share application money should not be re-characterized as loans for transfer pricing adjustments and directed the AO to compute average investment value by excluding foreign and non-dividend yielding investments for Section 14A disallowance. The issue of right of way expenses was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence to support the claim that the PMGKY declaration was from 'on-money' receipts. The Tribunal also addressed other additions made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence to support the claim that the PMGKY declaration was from 'on-money' receipts. The Tribunal also addressed other additions made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence to support the claim that the PMGKY declaration was from 'on-money' receipts. The Tribunal also addressed other additions made by the Assessing Officer.