ITAT Mumbai Judgments — October 2023

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence for sales promotion expenses and restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination. For depreciation on intangible assets and goodwill, the Tribunal followed previous decisions and restored the matter to the AO for fresh examination, while upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on depreciation on goodwill.

The Tribunal held that the AO's method of adjusting refunds was incorrect. It directed the AO to re-compute the interest under Section 244A by first adjusting the refund towards the interest component and then the tax component, as per the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal held that the AO's method of adjusting refunds was incorrect. It directed the AO to re-compute the interest under Section 244A by first adjusting the refund towards the interest component and then the tax component, as per the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal held that since the facts and circumstances were identical to a previous assessment year where the AO had accepted the assessee's contentions after examining valuation reports and other evidence, there was no reason to deviate. The Tribunal found no merit in the AO's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable because the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer did not specify either concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, as required by law.

The Tribunal held that while the reopening of the assessment was valid, the AO failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the LTCG earned by the assessee was bogus. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments with any other cooperative bank is allowable as a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The matter was remanded to the AO for proper bifurcation of interest income earned from cooperative banks.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was engaged in educational activities and that the CIT had not provided adequate opportunity for the assessee to submit all required details. The CIT's observations regarding business activities and donations were also questioned.

The Tribunal held that the reasons for reopening were not served upon the assessee, as there was no proof of service or acknowledgement of receipt for the communication containing the reasons. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence for sales promotion expenses and restored the issue to the AO for fresh examination. For depreciation on intangible assets and goodwill, the Tribunal followed previous decisions and restored the matter to the AO for fresh examination, while upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on depreciation on goodwill.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including tax invoices, bank statements, and VAT returns, to substantiate the purchases. The Tribunal found no concrete material to doubt the genuineness of the purchases from M/s. SAR Engineering Ltd. in the current assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order under Section 153C for a concluded assessment year is unsustainable in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search. Furthermore, there was no satisfaction note recorded by the AO for AY 2009-10, which is a prerequisite for issuing a notice under Section 153C.

The Tribunal found a violation of natural justice as the assessee was not given a proper hearing. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to allow the assessee an opportunity to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal issued a corrigendum to its previous order to correct clerical mistakes. These corrections pertain to factual inaccuracies regarding the assessee's name, the appellate authority, disallowance amounts, and the pendency of appeals in prior years.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments with any other cooperative bank is allowable as a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The matter was remanded to the AO for proper bifurcation of interest income earned from cooperative banks.

The Tribunal found that the impugned order was ex-parte and not decided on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the case was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that making an incorrect claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Since the additions/disallowances forming the basis of the penalty were either deleted or not sustainable, the penalty could not be levied.

The Tribunal noted that the present appeal filed by the AO was a duplicate of another appeal already filed for the same assessment year and raising identical grounds. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the current appeal as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii) applies if the consideration is paid by any mode other than cash on or before the date of agreement. It was irrelevant that the initial payment was made by the husband as the property was jointly purchased.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to comply with notices and update communication details.

The Tribunal held that ESOP expenses are revenue expenditure and not contingent, following High Court decisions. It also confirmed that the assessee should be granted full TDS credit as reflected in Form 26AS, as the corresponding income was offered.

The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had already remitted a similar issue to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, this appeal was also restored to the Assessing Officer to verify TDS remittance and ensure no double deduction.

The Tribunal held that the appeal could not be admitted due to the significant delay and the absence of a condonation petition. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as un-admitted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to only those investments that have yielded exempt income during the year. The AO was directed to recompute the disallowance based on this principle.

The Tribunal held that the reasons for reopening were not served upon the assessee, as there was no proof of service or acknowledgement of receipt for the communication containing the reasons. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that since the facts and circumstances were identical to a previous year where the AO accepted the assessee's contentions after examining valuation reports, there was no reason to upset the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal found no merit in the AO's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the test of commercial expediency does not solely depend on whether a transaction results in profit. Since the borrowed funds were used for business purposes and the revenue did not prove otherwise, the disallowance was not tenable.

The Tribunal found that the Commissioner failed to decide the appeal properly due to the assessee's lack of response and a misunderstanding of the appeal's subject matter. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the Commissioner for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that expenditure corresponding to the revenue booked under the project completion method should be allowed. It directed the AO to allow expenditure to the extent of 71% of the project completion for which revenue was taxed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present its case due to the short notice provided by the CIT(Exemptions).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard and submit necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the penalty could not be upheld due to the Assessing Officer's failure to clearly specify the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income in the assessment order. The penalty was deleted on this technical ground.

The Tribunal issued a corrigendum to its previous order to correct clerical mistakes. These corrections pertain to factual inaccuracies regarding the assessee's name, the appellate authority, disallowance amounts, and the pendency of appeals in prior years.

The Tribunal issued a corrigendum to its previous order to correct clerical mistakes. These corrections pertain to factual inaccuracies regarding the assessee's name, the appellate authority, disallowance amounts, and the pendency of appeals in prior years.

The Tribunal held that making an incorrect claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Since the additions/disallowances forming the basis of the penalty were either deleted or not sustainable, the penalty could not be levied.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid because the AO acted on a borrowed satisfaction and failed to link the material with the actual facts of the case. Since the purchases were capitalized and not claimed as a deduction, the basis for reopening was flawed.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments with any other cooperative bank is allowable as a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The matter was remanded to the AO for proper bifurcation of interest income earned from cooperative banks.

The Tribunal held that the omission of Section 92BA(i) by the Finance Act, 2017, without any saving clause, rendered the reference to the TPO and subsequent transfer pricing adjustments invalid for specified domestic transactions. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's age and lack of technical knowledge. The Tribunal also deleted the addition made under Section 50C, following a coordinate bench decision that held the 10% tolerance limit was applicable retrospectively from 1.4.2003.

The Tribunal held that since the facts and circumstances were identical to a previous year where the AO accepted the assessee's contentions after examining valuation reports, there was no reason to upset the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal found no merit in the AO's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not disbelieve the LTCG claim when the assessee provided all supporting documents for transactions conducted through the stock exchange. For expenses, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to Rs. 25,000.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present its case due to the short notice provided by the CIT(Exemptions).

The Tribunal issued a corrigendum to its previous order to correct clerical mistakes. These corrections pertain to factual inaccuracies regarding the assessee's name, the appellate authority, disallowance amounts, and the pendency of appeals in prior years.

The Tribunal held that a mere shortfall in cash found during a survey compared to the books does not automatically warrant an addition under Section 69C. Following precedent, the Tribunal found that Section 69C was not attracted in this case.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to delayed PF deposit, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. However, it allowed the appeal on the consultancy fees, holding them to be revenue expenditure deductible under Section 37(1).

The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not provide complete documentary evidence before the AO, but did so before the CIT(A). Since the AO did not file a remand report on this additional evidence, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the compensation paid was a legitimate business expenditure. The existence of a prior agreement, supported by post-dated cheques and executed on stamp paper, established a pre-existing right that was surrendered by Emtelle India Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance on cost of production and other expenses to the extent of 2% is confirmed. For finance cost, further relief was granted, deleting disallowances on accepted loans and brokerage expenses. For unexplained assets, the disallowance was restricted to the depreciation claimed.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was passed beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer was required to complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which DRP directions were received.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance but granted one final opportunity in the interest of justice. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination on merits, with directions for the assessee to provide details and represent the case without adjournments.