ITAT Mumbai Judgments — October 2023

The Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was because the assessee's email address on record was inactive, leading to non-receipt of hearing notices.

The Tribunal noted that similar additions for making charges in a group concern were deleted by a co-ordinate bench. Regarding Section 68, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of amounts not received in the relevant year and granted relief on other amounts, finding that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing sufficient documentation for share capital/premium.

The Tribunal noted that similar additions for making charges in a group concern were deleted by a co-ordinate bench. Regarding Section 68, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of amounts not received in the relevant year and granted relief on other amounts, finding that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing sufficient documentation for share capital/premium.

The Tribunal noted that similar additions for making charges in a group concern were deleted by a co-ordinate bench. Regarding Section 68, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of amounts not received in the relevant year and granted relief on other amounts, finding that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing sufficient documentation for share capital/premium.

The Tribunal noted that similar additions for making charges in a group concern were deleted by a co-ordinate bench. Regarding Section 68, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of amounts not received in the relevant year and granted relief on other amounts, finding that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing sufficient documentation for share capital/premium.

The Tribunal noted that similar additions for making charges in a group concern were deleted by a co-ordinate bench. Regarding Section 68, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of amounts not received in the relevant year and granted relief on other amounts, finding that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing sufficient documentation for share capital/premium.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal and the Revenue's no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the additions for making charges and wastage claims, which were based on parallel books of accounts and statements from labourers, were deleted as identical additions in a group concern were deleted by a co-ordinate bench. Regarding Section 68 additions, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of share subscribers, and the AO failed to disprove the same.

The Tribunal held that the additions for making charges and wastage claims, which were based on parallel books of accounts and statements from labourers, were deleted as identical additions in a group concern were deleted by a co-ordinate bench. Regarding Section 68 additions, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of share subscribers, and the AO failed to disprove the same.

The Tribunal held that the conversion of a capital asset into stock-in-trade is a transfer and the profit arising from the sale of such converted asset should be treated as business income. The assessee's claim that it was a capital gain was rejected.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that similar additions for making charges in a group concern were deleted by a co-ordinate bench. Regarding Section 68, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of amounts not received in the relevant year and granted relief on other amounts, finding that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing sufficient documentation for share capital/premium.

The Tribunal held that the additions for making charges and wastage claims, which were based on parallel books of accounts and statements from labourers, were deleted as identical additions in a group concern were deleted by a co-ordinate bench. Regarding Section 68 additions, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of share subscribers, and the AO failed to disprove the same.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. This was because the assessee's submissions were filed just one day after the deadline due to document collation delays, and the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order on the same day.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not provide details of hearing notices served to the assessee. Therefore, to ensure justice and decide on merits, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that similar additions for making charges in a group concern were deleted by a co-ordinate bench. Regarding Section 68, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of amounts not received in the relevant year and granted relief on other amounts, finding that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing sufficient documentation for share capital/premium.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with the condition precedent of depositing employee's contribution to PF & ESI before the due date. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled to any deduction, and the CIT(A)'s order allowing the claim is quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to deduction for employee's contribution to PF/ESI if deposited after the due date, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd. The CIT(A) had rightly decided the issue against the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to deduction for employee's contribution to PF/ESI if deposited after the due date, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd. The CIT(A) had rightly decided the issue against the assessee.

The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF/ESI must be deposited before the due date prescribed by the relevant statutes to be eligible for deduction. Since the assessee failed to comply with this condition, no deduction is allowed.

The Tribunal deleted additions related to making charges and wastage claims, finding that similar additions in a group concern were deleted by a co-ordinate bench. Regarding share capital, the Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden under Section 68 by providing sufficient documentation, and the AO failed to disprove the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal deleted additions related to making charges and wastage claims, finding that similar additions in a group concern were deleted by a co-ordinate bench. Regarding share capital, the Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden under Section 68 by providing sufficient documentation, and the AO failed to disprove the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material was found, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the accumulation of cash shown by the assessee was acceptable, as the withdrawals from the bank account were verified and the revenue failed to provide documentary evidence to the contrary. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was therefore deleted.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the application back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to be heard and submit necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the subsequent order by the CIT(A) was a nullity as the appeal had already been decided in favour of the assessee in a prior order. Therefore, the subsequent order was quashed.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution. The CIT(A) must dispose of the appeal on merits by passing a reasoned order.

The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF/ESI must be deposited before the due date prescribed under the Act to be eligible for deduction. Since the assessee failed to comply, the deduction was not allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment year 2011-12 falls outside the six-year period prescribed for reassessment under Section 153C, as the relevant date for reckoning this period is the date of the satisfaction note (18/12/2017). Therefore, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with the condition precedent of depositing employee's contribution to PF & ESI before the due date. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled to any deduction, and the CIT(A)'s order allowing the claim is quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance on bogus purchases to 12.5%, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the purchases and the revenue failed to controvert the CIT(A)'s finding that the material entered the books. The disallowance of interest expenses was also confirmed.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(E) that a de-novo assessment was required due to a 'complete mess' in the assessee's communication regarding corpus donations. The assessee's reply to the AO, the auditor's certificate, and the receipts issued to donors were found to be insufficient and contradictory.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without affording sufficient opportunity. To ensure justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the accumulation of cash shown by the assessee was acceptable, as the withdrawals from the bank account were verified and the revenue failed to provide documentary evidence to the contrary. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessment under section 153C was not valid as the necessary preconditions were not fulfilled and the seized document was not established to belong to the assessee. The addition under section 69C for interest was also deleted as no actual payment of interest was proven.

The Tribunal held that the assessment under section 153C was not valid as the necessary preconditions were not fulfilled and the seized document was not established to belong to the assessee. The addition under section 69C for interest was also deleted as no actual payment of interest was proven.

The Tribunal restored the issue of investments in mutual funds and insurance premium back to the AO for fresh verification of sources. The AO was also directed to gather details of property payments from the builder. Grounds 1-5 were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal deleted additions related to making charges and wastage claims, finding that similar additions in a group concern were deleted by a co-ordinate bench. Regarding share capital, the Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden under Section 68 by providing sufficient documentation, and the AO failed to disprove the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal deleted additions related to making charges and wastage claims, finding that similar additions in a group concern were deleted by a co-ordinate bench. Regarding share capital, the Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden under Section 68 by providing sufficient documentation, and the AO failed to disprove the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal deleted additions related to making charges and wastage claims, finding that similar additions in a group concern were deleted by a co-ordinate bench. Regarding share capital, the Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden under Section 68 by providing sufficient documentation, and the AO failed to disprove the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal deleted additions related to making charges and wastage claims, finding that similar additions in a group concern were deleted by a co-ordinate bench. Regarding share capital, the Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden under Section 68 by providing sufficient documentation, and the AO failed to disprove the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that the accumulation of cash shown by the assessee was acceptable, as the withdrawals from the bank account were verified and the revenue failed to provide documentary evidence to the contrary. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was therefore deleted.

The Tribunal held that the client code modifications, which were rectified on the same day within the permitted time by the exchange, could not be considered non-genuine without concrete evidence of collusion or fictitious transactions. The AO failed to conduct adequate inquiry.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after considering the assessee's submissions. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee for negligence and disobedience of statutory notices.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 and partly allowed the Revenue's cross-appeal for the same year. For AY 2011-12, both the assessee's and Revenue's appeals were dismissed. For AY 2013-14, the Revenue's appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals of both the assessee and the revenue. Certain comparables were excluded or included in the transfer pricing analysis, and other issues were remitted or upheld based on prior decisions.

The Tribunal held that an allotment letter, if it contains essential constituents of a contract and confers rights on the buyer, can be considered for determining the stamp duty value under Section 56(2)(x) and for the purpose of Section 50C of the Act. The AO's assumption that allotment letters can be backdated to manipulate property values was not sufficient to disregard the allotment letter in this case.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 and partly allowed the Revenue's cross-appeal for the same year. For AY 2011-12, both the assessee's and Revenue's appeals were dismissed. For AY 2013-14, the Revenue's appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part. It deleted disallowances on payments to subcontractors Pramod Baburao Salunkhe and Roju Sheikh, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus. Disallowances on site expenses (bamboo purchase) were fully allowed, while a 10% disallowance on other business expenses was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, a Non-banking Finance Company, correctly treated its securities as trading assets and valued them at cost or market value, whichever was lower. Consequently, provisions for mark-to-market losses and losses on sale of investments were allowed as business deductions.