ITAT Mumbai Judgments — September 2023

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a cooperative society, is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from cooperative banks. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, specifically the negligence of the prior chartered accountant.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds, holding that the final assessment order was passed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee acted as a conduit and was not the real beneficiary of the funds. Since the amounts were already disallowed and taxed in the hands of the ultimate beneficiary (M/s. TIISL), adding them to the assessee's income would amount to double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the lack of a license to conduct money lending business is not a ground for denying the deduction of bad debts written off, especially when the lending was part of the ordinary course of business. The CIT(A)'s findings were quashed.

The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the AO's disallowance of business promotion expenses. It held that the Supreme Court's decision in Apex Laboratories squarely covered the issue against the assessee, and no distinction based on quantum or nature of expenditure was permissible.

The Tribunal held that estimations made by the AO regarding contract receipts were partly justified. It also ruled that self-disallowed depreciation offered in the return under Section 153A could not be allowed without proper substantiation, and foreign travel expenses were disallowed due to lack of business purpose.

The Tribunal held that estimations made by the AO regarding contract receipts were partly justified. It also ruled that self-disallowed depreciation offered in the return under Section 153A could not be allowed without proper substantiation, and foreign travel expenses were disallowed due to lack of business purpose.

The Tribunal held that estimations made by the AO regarding contract receipts were partly justified. It also ruled that self-disallowed depreciation offered in the return under Section 153A could not be allowed without proper substantiation, and foreign travel expenses were disallowed due to lack of business purpose.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of the deduction for late deposit of employees' share of provident fund contribution is correct, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Limited. Interest under Sections 234B and 234C is consequential and mandatory.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) after reviewing the documentary evidence provided by the assessee. Consequently, the grounds related to the merits of the case were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the AO's disallowance of business promotion expenses. It held that the Supreme Court's decision in Apex Laboratories squarely covered the issue against the assessee, and no distinction based on quantum or nature of expenditure was permissible.

The Tribunal held that the AO's notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was bad in law as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was levied for concealment without a clear finding on which limb was attracted.

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

The Tribunal held that the IBC has an overriding effect over other laws, including the Income Tax Act. Consequently, no suit or legal proceedings can be initiated or continued against a corporate debtor in liquidation without the approval of the Adjudicating Authority.

The Tribunal, following various coordinate bench judgments, held that Surcharge and Education Cess should be allowed as part of MAT credit. Consequently, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside.

The Tribunal held that since the proprietorship concern YMS was no longer in existence, the assessee was not entitled to TDS credit corresponding to the receipts. This was in accordance with Rule 37BA, which mandates that TDS credit should be given to the successor entity upon proper declaration.

The tribunal set aside the issue of depreciation on goodwill to the AO for re-examination of the actual cost. The claim for deduction under Section 35DD for amalgamation expenses was dismissed due to lack of supporting evidence for a portion of the expenditure. The AO's appeal was also partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance was ad-hoc and not based on substantial enquiry or specific discrepancies. The CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance was found to be without perversity, considering the substantial evidence submitted and the improved NP declared by the assessee.

The tribunal set aside the issue of depreciation on goodwill to the AO for re-examination of the actual cost. The claim for deduction under Section 35DD for amalgamation expenses was dismissed due to lack of supporting evidence for a portion of the expenditure. The AO's appeal was also partly allowed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, considering the reasons as bonafide and the delay minuscule. The case was remanded to the Ld. Commissioner for a decision on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and held that when sales are accepted as genuine, the entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine. The profit element embedded in such purchases should be estimated and added, not the entire purchase amount.

The Tribunal found that the PCIT passed the order without proper submissions from the assessee. Therefore, to ensure a just decision, the case was remanded back to the PCIT for a fresh decision after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was null and void because the Assessing Officer made an addition on grounds different from those for which the assessment was reopened. The Tribunal followed the precedent set by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Limited.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds, holding that the final assessment order was passed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding that the quantities of mining, even if excessive, were accounted for and offered to tax. The Assessing Officer's addition was based on assumptions and not supported by adequate material.

The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the AO's disallowance of business promotion expenses. It held that the Supreme Court's decision in Apex Laboratories squarely covered the issue against the assessee, and no distinction based on quantum or nature of expenditure was permissible.

The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the AO's disallowance of business promotion expenses. It held that the Supreme Court's decision in Apex Laboratories squarely covered the issue against the assessee, and no distinction based on quantum or nature of expenditure was permissible.

The Tribunal held that an appeal against an order under section 119(2)(b) is not maintainable before the Tribunal as per section 253 of the Act. However, considering a CBDT circular, the assessee was granted liberty to avail appropriate remedies.

The Tribunal held that the adjustments made under section 143(1) were invalid as the assessee's objections were not considered, violating the statutory provisos. Furthermore, since a scrutiny assessment order under section 143(3) was passed accepting the assessee's claim, the issue became academic.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied merely because the assessee's claim was not accepted by the revenue. It also noted that penalty cannot be invoked on estimations or ad-hoc additions without specific findings of concealment or inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied merely because the assessee's claim was not accepted by the revenue. It also noted that penalty cannot be invoked on estimations or ad-hoc additions without specific findings of concealment or inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, particularly Explanations 5 & 6, cannot be automatically read into the India-UK DTAA unless the DTAA itself is amended. Following higher judicial precedents, the roaming charges received by the assessee are not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, particularly Explanations 5 & 6, cannot be automatically read into the India-UK DTAA unless the DTAA itself is amended. Following higher judicial precedents, the roaming charges received by the assessee are not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that Section 11(7) did not bar claiming exemption under Section 10(23EC) for the assessment years in question, as an exception existed for this section prior to April 1, 2024. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for both exemptions.

The Tribunal held that Section 11(7) did not bar claiming exemption under Section 10(23EC) for the assessment years in question, as an exception existed for this section prior to April 1, 2024. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for both exemptions.

The Tribunal held that Section 11(7) did not bar claiming exemption under Section 10(23EC) for the assessment years in question, as an exception existed for this section prior to April 1, 2024. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for both exemptions.

The Tribunal held that there was an apparent mistake on record due to a technical fault in uploading the ITR. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer to provide the deduction under Section 54 after verification.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the Rs. 40 lakhs difference was due to an accounting error where an amount intended for M/s Elyco Builders was wrongly credited to M/s Kukreja Constructions. However, the assessee failed to provide documents to correct this error.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing substantial justice. It held that if sales are accepted as genuine, the entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine. The addition was restricted to an estimated profit element of 12.5% of the purchases.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the need for substantial justice and a liberal approach to delay condonation. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication to ensure principles of natural justice are followed.

The Tribunal deleted the protective additions made in the hands of the assessees, following its previous decisions where substantive additions were made in the hands of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain. Any income not covered by the substantive additions was also directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that transfer pricing provisions do not apply to income taxed under the Tonnage Tax Scheme for qualifying ship operations. For head office expenses, the adjustment was restricted to non-qualifying activities, and the addition related to qualifying activities was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to a defective penalty notice which was an omnibus show cause notice without striking off inapplicable parts. This defect, as per the Bombay High Court's Full Bench decision, invalidates the penalty.

The Tribunal held that when sales made from these purchases were accepted as genuine, the entire purchase amount could not be treated as non-genuine. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit element embedded in the non-genuine purchases at 5% and restrict the disallowance accordingly.

The Tribunal held that only investments yielding exempt dividend income should be considered for computing the average value of investments as per Rule 8D. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for recomputation.

The Tribunal held that only investments yielding exempt dividend income should be considered for computing the average value of investments as per Rule 8D. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for recomputation.

The Tribunal, while considering various grounds including the taxability of benefits and allowability of deductions, ultimately decided to partly allow the Revenue's appeal. The specific outcome for each ground is not detailed in the provided excerpt, but the overall order indicates a mixed result.

The Tribunal noted that the issues were identical to those decided in earlier years by a coordinate bench. Consequently, the Tribunal followed its previous decisions, deleting certain disallowances and adjustments, while remitting one issue back to the Assessing Officer for further examination.

The Tribunal upheld the finding that the assessee was engaged in providing accommodation entries. However, it directed the AO to re-estimate the commission income based solely on debit entries in the bank statement, requiring the assessee to produce the statement.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A), violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set aside.