ITAT Mumbai Judgments — September 2023

ALSID CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs DCIT/ACIT, CPC, BANGALORE

ITA 1204/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2023AY 2020-2021Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from deposits made with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. This decision followed a consistent view of co-ordinate benches.

NEELYOG BUILDERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs ACIT-10(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2196/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: Heard28 Sept 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, holding that common maintenance charges collected and deposited in a separate account for the society are not the income of the assessee. The addition made by the AO was deleted.

NIRMAAN RMBS TRUST SERIES III 2013,MUMBAI vs DCIT (TDS) 2(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2859/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (Form 26A) filed by the assessee, citing technical difficulties and lack of reasoned orders from lower authorities. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

NEETA PRAKASH BAVISHI,MUMBAI vs NATIONAL FAELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

ITA 1844/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2023AY 2011-2012Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to comply with notices issued by the CIT(A) due to a family medical emergency. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (IT)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs M/S MCKINSEY & COMPANY SINGAPORE PTE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 2123/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the borrowed services fees received by the assessee do not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). Consequently, these receipts are to be treated as business profits, which are not taxable in India in the absence of a PE.

PUNDITS BUSINESS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs ITO, WARD-2(4), THANE

ITA 2133/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2023AY 2013-2014Remanded

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) because the appeal was not considered on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to issue fresh notices and the assessee was directed to attend the proceedings without adjournment.

SAPANA ANIL BHASIN,MUMBAI vs CIT (A), DELHI

ITA 1980/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It restored the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision, noting that the assessee could not upload details due to lack of technical expertise and that submissions made before the CIT(A) were not considered.

VAIBHAV CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs PRINCIPLE CIT-27, MUMBAI

ITA 1868/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2023AY 2018-2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable. It relied on Supreme Court and High Court decisions which held that credit cooperative societies are entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), and Section 80P(4) does not apply to them if they are not functioning as commercial banks.

RAHEJA GREEN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 32(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1943/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2023AY 2017-2018Allowed

The Tribunal held that even though cooperative banks are excluded from the deduction under Section 80P due to Section 80P(4), they remain cooperative societies. Therefore, interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).

OM PRAKASH,JODHPUR vs LD. AO WARD 3(4), KALYAN

ITA 1713/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the addition was justified based on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, which clarifies that such amounts are taxable if not deposited within the due dates. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not brought all relevant facts to the attention of the lower authorities.

INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEM.)-(1), MUMBAI vs M/S BANK OF INDIA RETIRED EMPLOYEES MEDICAL ASSISTANCE SCHEME, MUMBAI

ITA 2319/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2023AY 2010-2011Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that once the assessee is registered under Section 12A, it is eligible for exemption under Sections 11 and 12. The Tribunal also directed that expenses incurred for the objects of the trust should be allowed as application of income.

BANK OF INDIA RETIRED EMPLOYEES MEDICAL ASSISTANCE SCHEME,MUMBAI vs ITO (E)-1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2186/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2023AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that once the assessee is registered under Section 12A, it is eligible for exemption under Sections 11 and 12. The Tribunal also directed that expenses incurred for the objects of the trust should be allowed as application of income.

NIRMAAN RMBS TRUST SERIES 111 2013,MUMBAI vs DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) 2(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2860/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2023AY 2018-2019Remanded

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (Form 26A) filed by the assessee, citing technical difficulties and lack of reasoned orders from lower authorities. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

NIRMAAN RMBS TRUST SERIES I 2015,MUMBAI vs DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)2, MUMBAI

ITA 3231/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (Form 26A) filed by the assessee, citing technical difficulties and lack of reasoned orders from lower authorities. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

BANK OF INDIA RETIRED EMPLOYEES MEDICAL ASSISTANCE SCHEME,MUMBAI vs ITO (E)-1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2190/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that once the assessee is registered under Section 12A, it is eligible for exemption under Sections 11 and 12. The Tribunal also directed that expenses incurred for the objects of the trust should be allowed as application of income.

INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEM.)-(1), MUMBAI vs M/S BANK OF INDIA RETIRED EMPLOYEES MEDICAL ASSISTANCE SCHEME, MUMBAI

ITA 2320/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2023AY 2013-2014Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that once the assessee is registered under Section 12A, it is eligible for exemption under Sections 11 and 12. The Tribunal also directed that expenses incurred for the objects of the trust should be allowed as application of income.

LAXMI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER- 22(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1745/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2023AY 2015-2016Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest received by a co-operative society from investments in other co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The CIT(A)'s reliance on the Totgar's case was found to be erroneous in light of the Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Supreme Court decision.

IDBI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs ACIT-LTU(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 4596/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2023AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was not sustainable due to lack of objective satisfaction by the AO. It also deleted the disallowance of penalties imposed by the RBI, allowing them as a deduction. Furthermore, the Tribunal deleted the addition of tax on non-monetary perquisites to book profits under Section 115JB.

ETERNIS FINE CHEMICALS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), MUMBAI

ITA 2079/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2013-2014Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) is obliged to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution, citing the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF). The impugned order was set aside due to lack of due opportunity and failure to decide on merits.

U S ROOFS LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO, NFE-ASS C, DELHI DELHI, DELHI

ITA 2103/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2008-09Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the medical emergencies as a sufficient cause. The Tribunal also held that the Commissioner (Appeals) is obligated to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution, setting aside the previous ex-parte orders.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CEN-CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI vs M/S EVERGREEN ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

ITA 2140/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions were already made in the hands of Shri Nilesh Bharani, the protective additions made in the assessee's hands were rightly deleted by the CIT(A). The Revenue's appeals were dismissed as unnecessary litigation.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CEN-CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI vs M/S EVERGREEN ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

ITA 2138/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2016-2017Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions were already made in the hands of Shri Nilesh Bharani, the protective additions made in the assessee's hands were rightly deleted by the CIT(A). The Revenue's appeals were dismissed as unnecessary litigation.

LABH CAPITAL SERVICES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs ITO, WARD-7(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1326/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that a Debt Redemption Reserve is not to be added back for computing book profit under Section 115JB, following the ratio of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Raymond Ltd. and other ITAT decisions.

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KALYAN vs M/S ASB INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1541/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that brought forward business losses and depreciation cannot be set off against the profits of an undertaking eligible for Section 10B deduction when calculating the eligible deduction. The AO's approach was contrary to statutory provisions.

SHEETAL PRASAD GAWANDI,MUMBAI vs ITO 27(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1950/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 5 lac was not justified as the investment was made by the assessee's employer, and the assessee was only credited with the interest earned. The assessee's total income was also below the taxable limit.

U S ROOFS LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO, NFE-ASS C, DELHI DELHI, DELHI

ITA 2104/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the medical emergencies as a sufficient cause. The Tribunal also held that the Commissioner (Appeals) is obligated to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution, setting aside the previous ex-parte orders.

SHIVDHAM CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

ITA 1858/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that a cooperative society is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest earned from investments made with a cooperative bank, even after the introduction of sub-section (4) of Section 80P. The CIT(A)'s order confirming the disallowance was set aside.

SHREE VIJAYA RESIDENCY CO-OP-HSG. SCO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs CIT, DELHI

ITA 1993/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society from its investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court's decision, stating it pertained to deductions under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) or (iii), not (d).

HAREN PRAMODKUMAR PAREKH,MUMBAI vs ACIT, CIR-19(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2070/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without properly examining the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

MR. AJIT BHAGWAN KULKARNI,MUMBAI vs DCIT CC-3(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2071/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner failed to pass an order on merit due to the assessee's lack of appearance and documentation. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision.

ICICI BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1113/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that the allowability of depreciation on goodwill in the current assessment year is dependent on the decision of a pending appeal for assessment year 2011-12, which was the first year the claim was made. Consequently, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CEN-CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI vs M/S EVERGREEN ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

ITA 2139/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions were already made in the hands of Shri Nilesh Bharani, the protective additions made in the assessee's hands were rightly deleted by the CIT(A). The Revenue's appeals were dismissed as unnecessary litigation.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CEN-CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI vs M/S EVERGREEN ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

ITA 2141/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2013-2014Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions were already made in the hands of Shri Nilesh Bharani, the protective additions made in the assessee's hands were rightly deleted by the CIT(A). The Revenue's appeals were dismissed as unnecessary litigation.

TEKFAB ENGINEERS,MUMBAI vs DCIT, CIRCLE 3, THANE

ITA 2131/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2013-2014Remanded

The Tribunal found that the Purchase Orders contained clauses for liquidated damages and that the AO could have determined the relevant year and cause of delay by examining them. Therefore, the issue requires fresh examination by the AO.

OM SHRI YASHODHAN CO-OP HSG., SOC.,MUMBAI vs ITO WARD 41(4)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1236/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the assessee on deposits with a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). They followed decisions of various High Courts and coordinate benches that allowed such deductions, distinguishing them from the facts of the Apex Court ruling.

DCIT-CC 5(2), MUMBAI vs KRISHIRAJ ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

ITA 1923/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish a link between the income offered to the ITSC and the cash deposited. The onus was on the assessee to prove the source of the cash deposit.

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1880/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that assessments made under Section 153C without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) are invalid. It also directed the Assessing Officer to allow proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) for eligible residential units.

DCIT -3(4), MUMBAI vs M/S. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 1447/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by its own previous decisions in the assessee's case. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, overseas State taxes not eligible for relief under Section 90 or 91 are not covered by Section 40(a)(ii). The Assessing Officer had already allowed the deduction in a prior year after verification.

M/S. SHREE MAHALAXMI KRUPA SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

ITA 1682/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal held that while the Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. disallows deductions for PF contributions deposited after the due date, a portion of the disallowed amount was deposited within the prescribed period or was employer's contribution. Therefore, the issue needed to be remanded to the AO for fresh verification.

TIRUPATI DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs ITO WARD-17(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1850/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2012-2013Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to point out any defect in the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the loan transactions. Reliance on a third-party statement that was later retracted was insufficient.

NSK ADVISORS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT (A)-53, MUMBAI

ITA 2126/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 153A of the Act is null and void in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search. The Revenue failed to provide evidence of such material.

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA P LTD,MUMBAI vs DCIT- 9(1)(2) (NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC 2(4)), MUMBAI

ITA 1940/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that assessments made under Section 153C without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) are invalid. It also directed the Assessing Officer to allow proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) for eligible residential units.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CEN-CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI vs M/S EVERGREEN ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

ITA 2136/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2018-2019Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions were already made in the hands of Shri Nilesh Bharani, the protective additions made in the assessee's hands were rightly deleted by the CIT(A). The Revenue's appeals were dismissed as unnecessary litigation.

ASHISH DYECHEM & TEXTILES PROCESSORS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs DCIT CENT-CIR 4(1) (1), MUMBAI

ITA 1749/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal affirmed the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A), following the Apex Court's dictum regarding timely deposit of employee's contributions. However, one issue was remanded for decision.

NCDEX INVESTOR (CLIENT) PROTECTION FUND TRUST,MUMBAI vs THE CIT (EXEM), MUMBAI

ITA 1917/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was not erroneous. Relying on a coordinate bench's decision, it was found that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 10(23EC) for contributions and Section 11/12 for other income, as the amendment to Section 11(7) making simultaneous claims impermissible was effective only from April 1, 2024.

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1514/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2008-09Partly Allowed

The Tribunal deleted an addition of Rs. 7,23,82,604/- as it was already added in AY 2009-10. The issue of fixed assets was remanded to the AO for further examination. The assessee's eligibility for exemption under Section 10AA was allowed for statistical purposes.

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,MIMBAI vs DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1877/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that assessments made under Section 153C without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) are invalid. It also directed the Assessing Officer to allow proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) for eligible residential units.

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1876/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that assessments made under Section 153C without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) are invalid. It also directed the Assessing Officer to allow proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(10) for eligible residential units.

U S ROOFS LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO, NFE-ASS C, DELHI DELHI, DELHI

ITA 2105/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the medical emergencies as a sufficient cause. The Tribunal also held that the Commissioner (Appeals) is obligated to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution, setting aside the previous ex-parte orders.

U S ROOFS LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO, NFE-ASS C, DELHI DELHI, DELHI

ITA 2112/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: Disposed27 Sept 2023AY 2006-07Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the medical emergencies as a sufficient cause. The Tribunal also held that the Commissioner (Appeals) is obligated to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution, setting aside the previous ex-parte orders.