Loading ITAT cases…
5,747 tribunal orders from the Mumbai bench in 2024.
Showing 40 of 5,747 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the search and seizure action, forming the basis of the assessment orders, was illegal. Consequently, the assessment orders were rendered invalid, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, while those filed by the assessees were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) as the income is derived from the operation and management of industrial parks, which is classified as 'business income'. Previous rulings by coordinate benches also supported this position.
The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for not filing advance tax as per Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal observed that for prior and subsequent years, the AO accepted the assessee's contention that the parent trust consolidated the income and filed the return, and no addition was made.
The Tribunal held that for AY 2015-16, the notice under Section 148 was time-barred. For AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, the sanction for the notice under Section 148 was not obtained from the appropriate authority as per Section 151(ii) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide sufficient evidence to disprove the genuineness of the purchases, relying solely on the vendors' tax filing status. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that the AO did not conduct independent inquiries to corroborate the information received and that the assessee had discharged its burden by providing invoices and ledger accounts. The Tribunal noted a discrepancy in the name of the party and the PAN number mentioned in the information, placing the onus on the revenue to prove its allegations.
The Tribunal held that the search and seizure action, forming the basis of the assessment orders, was illegal. Consequently, the assessment orders were rendered invalid, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, while those filed by the assessees were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the AO must record satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim before invoking Rule 8D. Since the AO did not provide cogent reasons for rejecting the assessee's scientific basis for disallowance and relied on presumptions, the invocation of Rule 8D was not justified.
The Tribunal held that M/s Nivya Infrastructure Ltd. is not a penny stock and there is no SEBI/BSE order confirming price manipulations. The assessee is a regular investor, and the transactions were conducted through a reputed broker and reflected in bank accounts. The price fluctuations occurred in earlier years, and the assessee already has significant carried forward losses, rendering the alleged transaction insignificant for tax purposes. The CIT(A)'s order was also noted to have directed action only if short-term capital gains were adjusted against profits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the assessee's appeal. The amendment agreements clarified that the assessee executed the work in its principal capacity and the other JV member received a fixed fee, not profit share.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 were devoid of merit. The documentary evidence could not be rejected solely based on the statements of individuals not produced for cross-examination.
The ITAT acknowledged the validity of the reassessment proceedings but noted that the assessee submitted a Paper Book containing crucial evidence like audited financials, invoices, and bank statements showing TDS for manpower services for the first time before the ITAT. Consequently, the ITAT remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, instructing the AO to review the new documents and provide the assessee with an effective opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the error in the opening WDV was a typographical mistake, which was subsequently rectified in a revised return. The Tribunal also observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) had taken the income from the revised return as the basis for assessment without disallowing depreciation. The CIT(A) had directed the AO to examine the facts and grant the correct depreciation.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide sufficient evidence to disprove the genuineness of the purchases, relying solely on the vendors' tax filing status. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing supporting documents.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal by relying on CBDT circulars and High Court judgments. The AO's contention that the JV was a separate entity liable for TDS was not upheld.
The Tribunal held that the matter should be restored to the AO for proper substantiation of sales. The assessee needs to provide sale bills, bank statements, and ledger account confirmations for the sales made to wine companies. If the sales are found to be genuine, no addition should be made.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned. The amendments to Section 14A by the Finance Act 2022 were considered to be prospective and not retrospective. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the disallowance based on existing jurisprudence.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the CPC was beyond the scope of section 143(1) as it existed prior to April 1, 2021. The return of income was filed within the due date for a cooperative society. Therefore, the adjustment was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in allowing the assessee's appeal by relying on CBDT Circulars and High Court judgments that were not applicable to the facts of the case. The Tribunal found that the JV was indeed a separate entity and the assessee was liable for TDS.
The Tribunal observed that the total tax effect of the appeal fell under the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT, making the revenue barred from preferring this appeal. Therefore, the appeal was deemed not maintainable.
The Tribunal considered the agreements and amendments, noting that the assessee was solely responsible for execution and the other JV member was to receive a fixed fee. The Tribunal also discussed the applicability of Section 80-IA(4) and relied on Bombay High Court's decision that the conditions for development, operation, and maintenance are not cumulative.
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 were devoid of merit. The documentary evidence could not be rejected solely based on the statements of individuals not produced for cross-examination.
The Tribunal noted that while the AO rejected the claim of cash availability from sales, the AO did not reject the assessee's books of accounts and did not conduct proper inquiries. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee failed to furnish details of physical stock before the AO, which is crucial for substantiating cash sales. Consequently, the Tribunal admitted the stock summary as additional evidence and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that interest on excess self-assessment tax is allowable under Section 244A(1)(b) even for periods prior to the amendment. For delayed refunds, additional interest is allowable only from the date of introduction of the relevant provision (01.06.2016).
The Tribunal held that administrative support service charges and reimbursement of expenses at cost do not qualify as FTS under the India-UK DTAA. The decision followed a co-ordinate bench's ruling in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal held that interest on excess self-assessment tax is allowable under Section 244A(1)(b) even for periods prior to the amendment. For delayed refunds, additional interest is allowable only from the date of introduction of the relevant provision (01.06.2016).
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of INR 5.31 Cr, ruling that the CPC failed to issue proper notice under Section 143(1)(a) before making the adjustment. It also deleted the INR 9.57 Cr addition for the defined benefit plan, accepting the assessee's argument that the amount was already offered for tax, and the CPC's addition led to double taxation. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-compute tax liability, and the interest under Section 234B was deemed consequential.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the AO provided specific reasons and information from the Investigation Wing. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessee discharged its duty by identifying the payer, and the fact that Mr. Ravi Prakash's source of funds was unexplained did not concern the assessee, especially since the income was offered as business income.
The Tribunal noted that the factual position regarding whether the disputed incomes from AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 were voluntarily offered in AY 2015-16, or if they were admitted under the VSV scheme, was not clearly established. Due to these unaddressed vital facts, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed that the tax effect on the disputed penalty was less than Rs. 60,00,000/-, which is the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine due to low tax effect.
The Tribunal held that statements recorded under Section 133A of the Act, without corroborative material, do not have evidentiary value. Impounded documents were also considered 'dumb documents' without supporting evidence. The AO failed to provide complete documents and conduct independent inquiries.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was passed beyond the period of limitation and therefore liable to be quashed. Consequently, the issue regarding depreciation on goodwill was rendered academic.
The Tribunal held that administrative support service charges and reimbursement of expenses at cost do not qualify as FTS under the India-UK DTAA. The decision followed a co-ordinate bench's ruling in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the JV's status as a separate entity for tax purposes had ceased due to amendments in the JV agreement. Consequently, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on interest payments made to the JV.
The Tribunal held that administrative support service charges and reimbursement of expenses at cost do not qualify as FTS under the India-UK DTAA. The decision followed a co-ordinate bench's ruling in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the CPC was beyond the scope of section 143(1) as it existed prior to April 1, 2021. The return of income was filed within the due date for a cooperative society. Therefore, the adjustment was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing documentary evidence. The additions were based on surmises and conjectures without allowing cross-examination of third parties, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that administrative support service charges and reimbursement of expenses at cost do not qualify as FTS under the India-UK DTAA. The decision followed a co-ordinate bench's ruling in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on interest paid to the JV. The CIT(A) had allowed the appeal based on CBDT circulars and High Court judgments, which the Tribunal found persuasive.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) as the income is derived from the operation and management of industrial parks, which is classified as 'business income'. Previous rulings by coordinate benches also supported this position.