ITAT Mumbai Judgments — November 2023

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii), finding the AO's computation to be in conformity with the Act. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's appeal for AY 2009-10 was allowed, while the appeal for AY 2012-13 was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the date of allotment of the property, not the date of registration, should be considered as the date of acquisition for computing capital gains. The AO and CIT(A) erred in treating the gain as short-term.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without ensuring the assessee received proper notice and had a fair opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the ill-health of the assessee's representative constituted a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders dismissing the appeals solely on grounds of delay were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable in law because a valid notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was not issued after the filing of the return of income. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed without delving into the merits of the additions.

The Tribunal held that the ill-health of the assessee's representative constituted a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders dismissing the appeals solely on grounds of delay were set aside.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed various judicial precedents supporting this view.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) made incorrect factual findings and deleted additions without calling for a remand report or verifying the assessee's compliance. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment after providing the assessee an opportunity to comply.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) made incorrect factual findings and deleted additions without calling for a remand report or verifying the assessee's compliance. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment after providing the assessee an opportunity to comply.

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii), finding the AO's computation to be in conformity with the Act. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's appeal for AY 2009-10 was allowed, while the appeal for AY 2012-13 was partly allowed.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic as it lacked proper analysis of the evidence submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the evidence needed to be examined by the CIT(A) himself or through a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in invoking Section 50C without referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). The Tribunal also noted that the sale deed was executed and full consideration was received in AY 2010-11.

The Tribunal held that no notional rent could be taxed on unsold stock held as 'stock-in-trade' for assessment years up to 2017-18, as Section 23(5) was prospective from AY 2018-19. It also held that the addition under Section 43CA was not justified as the difference between sale value and stamp duty value was within the 10% tolerance limit.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's claim regarding project expenditures being revenue in nature once abandoned, following High Court decisions. Other grounds were either dismissed or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order passed by the CIT(E) was not sustainable in law and was required to be set aside. The primary reasoning was that the assessee had not been provided with an adequate opportunity of being heard after submitting certain evidence. The Tribunal noted that if the submitted evidence was incomplete, the assessee should have been given another opportunity to file the requisite evidence. Furthermore, the CIT(E) had noticed various discrepancies in the evidence but had not discussed them in the order, rendering the entire order cryptic. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and directed that it be passed afresh after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii), finding the AO's computation to be in conformity with the Act. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's appeal for AY 2009-10 was allowed, while the appeal for AY 2012-13 was partly allowed.

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the error was a genuine typographical mistake and not an attempt to introduce unaccounted money. The Tribunal found no evidence that the assessee utilized the excess claimed amount for any investment or that it led to tax evasion.

The Tribunal held that the DDT rate is governed by Section 115-O of the Income Tax Act and not by the DTAA. It further held that treaty protection for domestic companies paying DDT is not automatically extended and requires specific provisions in the DTAA, which were absent in this case.

The Tribunal agreed that directions for applying a 4.5% net profit rate on sub-contract receipts were inadvertently omitted. The Tribunal allowed the corrigendum application to include this direction.

The Tribunal held that the corporate guarantee was for the assessee's own performance and thus no adjustment was warranted. It also upheld the assessee's claims regarding interest on loans, depreciation, and professional fees, relying on previous judgments in its own case.

The Tribunal agreed that directions for applying a 4.5% net profit rate on sub-contract receipts were inadvertently omitted. The Tribunal allowed the corrigendum application to include this direction.

The Tribunal held that the AO had duly examined the details of unsold flats held as stock-in-trade and correctly followed the CBDT circular and Supreme Court judgments. Therefore, the PCIT's invocation of section 263 was not sustainable.

The Tribunal allowed the MTM losses as a deduction, directing the AO to reconsider MTM gains. It restored the issue of non-cash write-back of bad debts to the AO for fresh consideration. The disallowance of club membership fees was also upheld in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the MTM losses as a deduction, directing the AO to reconsider MTM gains. It restored the issue of non-cash write-back of bad debts to the AO for fresh consideration. The disallowance of club membership fees was also upheld in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to interest on the refund from the first day of the assessment year, as both conditions of Section 244A(1)(a)(i) were satisfied. The AO was directed to recompute the interest accordingly.

The Tribunal agreed that directions for applying a 4.5% net profit rate on sub-contract receipts were inadvertently omitted. The Tribunal allowed the corrigendum application to include this direction.

The Tribunal agreed that directions for applying a 4.5% net profit rate on sub-contract receipts were inadvertently omitted. The Tribunal allowed the corrigendum application to include this direction.

The Tribunal held that the corporate guarantee was for the assessee's own performance and thus no adjustment was warranted. It also upheld the assessee's claims regarding interest on loans, depreciation, and professional fees, relying on previous judgments in its own case.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans and the long-term capital gains were found to be bogus.

The Tribunal upheld the initiation of reassessment proceedings but found that the AO erred in not considering the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 54. The computation of capital gains was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans and the long-term capital gains were found to be bogus.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans and the long-term capital gains were found to be bogus.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the transfer pricing adjustment and other disallowances. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the disallowance of depreciation on a sample flat and the capitalization of foreign exchange loss, following its own previous decisions.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans and the long-term capital gains were found to be bogus.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans and the long-term capital gains were found to be bogus.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to submit additional evidence regarding the nature and source of the cash deposits. The AO was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the transfer pricing adjustment and other disallowances. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the disallowance of depreciation on a sample flat and the capitalization of foreign exchange loss, following its own previous decisions.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans and the long-term capital gains were found to be bogus.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed within the extended time limit provided by a CBDT circular, which allowed electronic filing up to June 15, 2016, for appeals due by May 15, 2016. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal on limitation grounds was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were invalid because they were made on a non-existing entity, citing Supreme Court judgments. Consequently, the grounds related to the merits of additions were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were invalid because they were made on a non-existing entity, citing Supreme Court judgments. Consequently, the grounds related to the merits of additions were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was incorrect as there is no restriction on claiming deduction for interest income earned from co-operative societies operating in multiple states. Section 80P(4) is not applicable in this case.

The Tribunal held that the issue of the commencement date for telecommunication services was decided in favor of the assessee by a co-ordinate bench. For transfer pricing adjustments concerning technology support charges and reimbursement of salary/related costs, the matters were restored to the AO/TPO for fresh determination.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 10 during the assessment proceedings, before the assessment order was passed, constitutes a valid compliance. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 11(2).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the Supreme Court's stance on substantial justice. It held that penalty proceedings are not sustainable when the quantum appeal, on which the penalty is based, is still pending.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal with the ITAT, finding sufficient cause due to the inadvertent mistake of not updating the email ID. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order for want of prosecution, emphasizing the need to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the deletion of the addition of Rs. 2,35,00,000/- was justified. The assessee had submitted substantial documentary evidence, including details of shareholders, PAN, addresses, bank statements, audited balance sheets, and share certificates. The Tribunal found no material on record from the AO or the Investigation Wing to suggest that the entities were mere paper companies or provided accommodation entries. The Tribunal also noted that the non-service of notices and non-production of parties, without further clinching information to doubt the genuineness, were not sufficient grounds to treat the transaction as non-genuine. The Tribunal further held that the deletion of the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- on account of the loan was also justified. The assessee had provided the loan confirmation, PAN, address, mode of payment, and bank statements. The CIT(A) had correctly noted that the assessee had discharged its primary onus, and the AO had not provided any material to disprove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction. The AO's addition was based on conjecture and surmises. Therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee filed its return within the due date applicable to cooperative societies with audited accounts. It also noted that Section 80AC was not applicable for the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus under Section 68 by proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The reliance on the statement of a former director was deemed insufficient, especially when the assessee had provided financial statements and bank details.

The Tribunal held that the addition of 12.5% on bogus purchases was not sustainable. Following the Bombay High Court's decision in PCIT vs. M/s. Mohommad Haji Adam & Co., the addition should be restricted to the gross profit rate declared by the assessee on genuine purchases.