ITAT Mumbai Judgments — October 2023

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.

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 found that the CIT(A) had not considered the assessee's submissions regarding the unabsorbed depreciation. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after verifying the assessee's claim.

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.

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 restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate its claim for brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation, with an opportunity for a hearing.

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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 1.71% of the bogus purchases. It reasoned that while the purchases were not genuine, the assessee's sales were not doubted, implying goods were acquired elsewhere.

The Tribunal held that the non-compliance with a notice under section 133(6) and the failure to produce PepsiCo did not automatically invalidate the royalty payment, especially given PepsiCo's established global presence. The Tribunal found no material to suggest the assessee used the trademark without consent, thus allowing the royalty expense.

The Tribunal held that the non-compliance with a notice under section 133(6) and the failure to produce PepsiCo did not automatically invalidate the royalty payment, especially given PepsiCo's established global presence. The Tribunal found no material to suggest the assessee used the trademark without consent, thus allowing the royalty expense.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was unsustainable as there was no assertion of proper service of notices on the assessee. The order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication in accordance with law.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the Transfer Pricing Officer's order was indeed barred by limitation. Consequently, the draft assessment order and the final assessment order were also considered bad in law and null and void.

The Tribunal held that delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC, after the statutory due date, is not allowable as a deduction. This decision followed the Supreme Court's ruling in the Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee can opt for beneficial provisions of the DTAA for one stream of income (short-term capital gains) and the provisions of the Income Tax Act for another stream of income (long-term capital losses). Therefore, the claim for carrying forward long-term capital losses was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the flat was consistently treated as stock-in-trade by the assessee, supported by financial statements. Therefore, Sections 56(2)(x) and 43CA were not applicable as the former applies to capital assets and the latter to the sale of property, not purchase by a trader.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had accepted the rejection of the Section 115BAC option for AY 2021-22 and did not file a fresh option for AY 2022-23, the benefit of Section 115BAC could not be granted. However, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee was allowed to claim all eligible deductions under the normal tax provisions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of additions made to book profits under Section 115JB related to Section 14A disallowances. It also directed the Assessing Officer to grant weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) and dispose of the rectification application for TDS credit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard, subject to payment of costs.

The CIT(Exemption) rejected the registration application due to non-submission of required documents despite notices. The assessee claimed they were unaware of the requirements.

The Tribunal held that the receipts were in the nature of reimbursement of expenses on a cost-to-cost basis, with no profit element embedded. Therefore, they were not taxable in India.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for additional evidence, finding it necessary to decide the issue. The case was remanded back to the AO for a fresh decision after examining the additional evidence.

The CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition, finding that the advance was offered to tax in subsequent years and the TDS credit was appropriately adjusted. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating the assessee followed AS-9.

The Tribunal held that both conditions of Section 50C(2) were fulfilled, as the stamp duty value exceeded the fair market value and the valuation was not disputed in any appeal. Therefore, the Assessing Officer should have referred the valuation to a Valuation Officer.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's request. The assessee cited the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. as a reason for withdrawal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's request. The assessee cited the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. as a reason for withdrawal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's request. The assessee cited the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. as a reason for withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the omission of Section 92BA(i) by the Finance Act, 2017, did not invalidate prior transfer pricing adjustments. However, it ruled that subsidies received under state industrial schemes for industrial development and employment generation are capital in nature and not taxable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn based on the assessee's request. The assessee cited the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. as a reason for withdrawal.