ITAT Mumbai Judgments — November 2023

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, citing bonafide reasons and the principle of substantial justice.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. This was due to a potential change in the assessee's email address leading to non-receipt of notices.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent failure to provide details but, in the interest of natural justice, granted one final opportunity. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. This was due to a potential change in the assessee's email address leading to non-receipt of notices.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not based on material found during the search in the assessee's case. Since the assessment year was concluded and unabated, additions under Section 153A require incriminating material, which was absent.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the technical issues and the applicability of the CBDT circular. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the CIT(E)'s findings regarding the commencement of activities and the date of provisional approval. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals. Additions related to income from house property were partly allowed, while issues concerning undisclosed income and the exemption under section 10(38) were decided based on the specific facts and grounds raised for each assessment year.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals. Additions related to income from house property were partly allowed, while issues concerning undisclosed income and the exemption under section 10(38) were decided based on the specific facts and grounds raised for each assessment year.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals. Additions related to income from house property were partly allowed, while issues concerning undisclosed income and the exemption under section 10(38) were decided based on the specific facts and grounds raised for each assessment year.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals. Additions related to income from house property were partly allowed, while issues concerning undisclosed income and the exemption under section 10(38) were decided based on the specific facts and grounds raised for each assessment year.

The assessee requested to withdraw one of the appeals filed before the Mumbai Bench. The Tribunal allowed the application for withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by producing overwhelming evidence, including confirmations, agreements, tax invoices, and board meeting minutes. The AO failed to conduct any inquiries to disprove the nature and source of receipts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by producing overwhelming evidence, including confirmations, agreements, tax invoices, and board meeting minutes. The AO failed to conduct any inquiries to disprove the nature and source of receipts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by producing overwhelming evidence, including confirmations, agreements, tax invoices, and board meeting minutes. The AO failed to conduct any inquiries to disprove the nature and source of receipts.

The Tribunal recalled its ex-parte order, taking a lenient view due to the counsel's submission of inadvertent mistake and the interest of justice. The appeal was directed to be fixed for hearing on merits.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals. Additions related to income from house property were partly allowed, while issues concerning undisclosed income and the exemption under section 10(38) were decided based on the specific facts and grounds raised for each assessment year.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals. Additions related to income from house property were partly allowed, while issues concerning undisclosed income and the exemption under section 10(38) were decided based on the specific facts and grounds raised for each assessment year.

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground raised by the assessee regarding the absence of incriminating material for additions in concluded assessments. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., the Tribunal held that no additions could be made if the assessment was not pending on the date of search and no incriminating material was found.

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground raised by the assessee regarding the absence of incriminating material for additions in concluded assessments. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., the Tribunal held that no additions could be made if the assessment was not pending on the date of search and no incriminating material was found.

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground raised by the assessee regarding the absence of incriminating material for additions in concluded assessments. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd., the Tribunal held that no additions could be made if the assessment was not pending on the date of search and no incriminating material was found.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals. Additions related to income from house property were partly allowed, while issues concerning undisclosed income and the exemption under section 10(38) were decided based on the specific facts and grounds raised for each assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without ensuring proper service of notices, especially when the assessee claimed notices were sent to outdated email addresses. The Tribunal emphasized the principles of natural justice and the need for an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case and evidence before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the CPC could not have made adjustments to treat exempt income as taxable without providing prior intimation to the assessee. It also noted that the dividend income and interest from tax-free bonds are indeed exempt under Sections 10(35) and 10(15) respectively.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits. It held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case and substantiate their claims.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the Revenue regarding the validity of proceedings under Section 153A. However, it found that the AO's access to the return filed by the assessee and the condonation of delay needed verification.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, stating the assessee should be given an opportunity to be heard on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case with evidence, upholding principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the need for the assessee to substantiate their case with evidence, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The disputed issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had produced evidence of purchases and sales were not doubted, only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases should be taxed. They considered it fair and reasonable to restrict the disallowance to 4% of the impugned purchases.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the share transactions, including purchase and sale bills, demat statements, and contract notes subjected to STT. The revenue failed to prove that unaccounted money transactions took place.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee company was struck off before the assessment order was passed and that the assessee's explanation for not submitting this information was unsatisfactory. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) overlooked the changes in the trust's object clause and did not provide a sufficient opportunity for hearing. The impugned order was set aside.

The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance despite opportunities. The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have considered the assessee's explanation for the delay and provided an opportunity to substantiate its case. Principles of natural justice require a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present documentary evidence. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-availability of information, but the assessee claimed to have submitted all details. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-availability of information, but the assessee claimed to have submitted all details. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to the lower authorities. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with another opportunity to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the sundry creditors and to prove prior taxation.

The Tribunal held that the date of the order is the date of its digital signature, which was November 1, 2019. This date was found to be one day beyond the prescribed limitation period for passing the TPO's order.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment did not explicitly state any failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment. Therefore, the reopening beyond four years was not justified.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemptions)'s orders, stating that the assessee should not suffer due to the limitation period. The case was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to furnish details.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemptions)'s orders, stating that the assessee should not suffer due to the limitation period. The case was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to furnish details.

The Tribunal partly allowed the revenue's appeal regarding head office expenditure, restricting disallowance to 1% of exempted income. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground concerning penal interest paid to the RBI, following established precedents.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be factually correct and in compliance with applicable law. Consequently, the grounds raised by the revenue were dismissed, and the assessee's appeals were also disposed of in line with the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Several grounds were decided in favor of the assessee, including issues related to payments to Master Card, interest to head office, and certain income/loss recoveries. Some grounds were remitted or decided against the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the extended due date. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issues back for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the adjustment for software development services, finding no error in the selection of comparable companies. It also upheld the partial relief granted for secondment of employees, aligning with previous year's orders. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds regarding telecommunication expenses, revised capital gains, and interest under Section 244A.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-appearance, without providing adequate opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order for fresh adjudication.