ITAT Mumbai Judgments — October 2023

The Tribunal found procedural chaos and missing facts in the orders of the lower authorities. It noted that the AO accepted the share capital from the same investors but questioned the share premium without specific observations. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the tax rate provided in the tax treaty for dividend is inclusive of surcharge and education cess. Therefore, these cannot be levied separately on the treaty rate.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden under Section 68 by providing documents like incorporation certificates, PAN, bank statements, and financial statements of the subscribers. The Tribunal found that the evidence furnished by the assessee outweighed the statements made during the search, especially since the statements were retracted and made under pressure.

The Tribunal restored the issue of treating the Ambey Valley property as self-occupied to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with clear reasoning. It also set aside the addition under Section 68, directing the CIT(A) to verify the actual sale consideration received by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the revenue was not maintainable. This was because the tax effect of the disputed depreciation claim was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 for filing appeals.

The Tribunal found that the comparability analysis failed due to a lack of comparable data. It directed the TPO/Assessing Officer to re-benchmark the international transactions by selecting the most appropriate method, either Resale Price Method or 'other method', and requiring the assessee to substantiate its claims.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable before it as it should have been filed before the CIT(A). The assessment order was passed pursuant to a section 263 order by the CIT.

The Tribunal held that only income attributable to services rendered in India was taxable in India, not income from work done outside India. It also ruled that Article 15 of the India-UK DTAA was not applicable to the firm.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposit was from legal money withdrawn by the assessee's mother and kept at home for a property deal. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to support his claim, and the addition could not be made solely on the basis of human probabilities.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of manual filing, especially considering the assessment order was passed before the amendment and the CBDT circular extended the e-filing deadline due to technical issues. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred by disallowing interest based on Section 40(b)(iv) without determining the fair market value of the loan as required by Section 40A(2)(a). The disallowance was not based on a proper comparison with prevailing market rates.

The Tribunal held that only income attributable to services rendered in India was taxable in India, not income from work done outside India. It also ruled that Article 15 of the India-UK DTAA was not applicable to the firm.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted additional evidence before the CIT(A) which was not examined. Considering the nature of the dispute and the evidence, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal has recalled its earlier order and re-fixed the appeal for hearing. The core issue revolves around the applicability of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act to the transaction of immovable property.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on both issues. For Section 14A, it followed the Special Bench and jurisdictional High Court decisions. For ESOP expenditure, it followed earlier ITAT decisions that allowed such expenditure as revenue.

The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed deposits were made within the grace period or on the next working day due to holidays, which might have been overlooked. To meet the ends of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions under Section 68, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing documentary evidence for identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A) that the alternate addition under Section 56(2)(viib) was not sustainable due to the validity of the assessee's valuation report.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in considering the consolidated financial statements for determining book profits, as the subsidiaries and associate companies are independent assessees. The profit declared in the standalone financial statements, adopted by the Assessing Officer, was deemed proper.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not conducted a proper comparison of lease rents for similar warehouses. Citing a Delhi High Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized the appellate authority's obligation to ensure proper inquiry.

The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) specifically denies deduction to cooperative banks, not cooperative housing societies. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction on interest income earned from cooperative banks.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering that the appeals were decided ex-parte due to the email issue and the absence of physical notices, the Tribunal remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance on staff welfare expenses, stating no personal element could be presumed without evidence. For conveyance and telephone expenses, following a previous year's order, the disallowance was reduced to 10%.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s findings on several grounds raised by both the Revenue and the assessee. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering submissions and documentary evidence, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that write-offs made in the books of subsidiary companies prior to the effective date of amalgamation cannot be disallowed in the hands of the assessee under Section 153A. For AY 2019-20, due to the admission of additional evidence, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification.

The Tribunal held that write-offs made in the books of subsidiary companies prior to the effective date of amalgamation cannot be disallowed in the hands of the assessee under Section 153A. For AY 2019-20, due to the admission of additional evidence, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification.

The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition to 6% of the alleged purchases, considering the profit embodied therein. It was clarified that if the profit was already offered to tax at a higher rate, the addition would be limited to that amount.

The Tribunal held that the addition should be restricted to 6% of the alleged purchases, considering the assessee's inability to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the profit already offered. However, if the profit was already offered at a higher rate, the addition would be limited to that amount.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that income from deposits in cooperative banks by a cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also held that income from scrap sale is eligible for deduction based on the principle of mutuality.

The Tribunal held that income from deposits in cooperative banks by a cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also held that income from scrap sale is eligible for deduction based on the principle of mutuality.

The Tribunal held that employee's contribution to PF/ESI deposited after the due date is not allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va). Therefore, the disallowance made by the CPC was justified.

The Tribunal held that income from deposits in cooperative banks by a cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It also held that income from scrap sale is eligible for deduction based on the principle of mutuality.

The Tribunal found the assessee's reason for non-compliance to be genuine, especially considering the Covid-19 period. The CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) overlooked facts regarding director remuneration and executive salaries. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on this issue and directed the AO to delete the disallowance, allowing the ground in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order and remitted the issues back to the PCIT for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to present evidence and cooperate with the proceedings, citing principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) could not decide the case on merits due to the absence of the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the issue of prior period expenses had been allowed in earlier years by co-ordinate benches and relied on a jurisdictional High Court decision. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the claim.

The Tribunal held that the price at which the eligible unit sold power to the non-eligible unit, which was the same as the price at which the manufacturing unit purchased from GEB, represented the market value. The comparable chosen by the DRP (Torrent Power Ltd.) was deemed unsuitable as its prices were influenced by GEB.

The Tribunal held that write-offs made in the books of subsidiary companies prior to the effective date of amalgamation cannot be disallowed in the hands of the assessee under Section 153A. For AY 2019-20, due to the admission of additional evidence, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification.

The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, holding that penalty cannot be levied on estimated income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that disallowance on an ad-hoc estimated basis does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s findings on several grounds raised by both the Revenue and the assessee. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering submissions and documentary evidence, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering that the appeals were decided ex-parte due to the email issue and the absence of physical notices, the Tribunal remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, held that late deposit of employees' contributions towards PF/ESIC is not allowable as a deduction. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is upheld.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders issued without a DIN, and not falling under exceptional circumstances with proper approval, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued, following the Bombay High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders issued without a DIN, and not falling under exceptional circumstances with proper approval, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued, following the Bombay High Court's decision.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds related to Section 14A and the revised computation, finding merit in the assessee's arguments regarding the amalgamation and the Supreme Court's decision in Dalmia Power Ltd. The Revenue's appeal concerning the addition under Section 69B was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned from fixed deposits used as margin money is eligible for deduction under Section 10AA. It also held that income from the sale of gold dust, generated as a by-product of the manufacturing activity, should be included in the profits for calculating the Section 10AA deduction.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders issued without a DIN, and not falling under exceptional circumstances with proper approval, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued, following the Bombay High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders issued without a DIN, and not falling under exceptional circumstances with proper approval, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued, following the Bombay High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that assessment orders issued without a DIN, and not falling under exceptional circumstances with proper approval, are invalid and deemed to have never been issued, following the Bombay High Court's decision.