ITAT Mumbai Judgments — February 2024

FAREES AHMED KHALIL AHMED SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs ITO WARD-23(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3742/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to bonafide reasons and not intentional. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that acceptance of explanations for delay should be the rule, and refusal an exception, especially when there is no negligence or mala fides.

HEGGADE SEVA SANGH ,MUMBAI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - EXEMPTION, MUMBAI

ITA 2915/MUM/2023[2021-2022]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2021-2022Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(E) to consider the assessee's application on its merits, allowing the assessee another opportunity to present all details and evidence.

KONARK INFRASTRUCTURE (WATER SUPPLY - UMC) (J/V),ULHASNAGAR vs DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4, THANE

ITA 3022/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that income settled by the Settlement Commission cannot be reopened. It also applied the principle of telescoping, allowing undisclosed income offered in earlier years to be set off against cash investments made by JV partners, thus disallowing protective additions.

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs ECGC LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 3813/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal addressed the disallowance under Section 14A by applying its prior findings for AY 2016-17 mutatis mutandis to other assessment years, allowing the assessee's ground. The disallowance of provisions for insurance claims was also handled by applying prior findings, leading to the allowance of the assessee's ground. Regarding the exemption under Section 10(38), the Tribunal held that the AO was bound by the CBDT communication dated February 21, 2006, and that the reopening of assessment was a change of opinion without tangible material, thus contrary to law. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the claim of exemption, allowing this ground of the assessee. The grounds concerning the levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C were deemed consequential and dismissed. The ground regarding the assessment order being time-barred for AY 2020-21 was not pressed and thus dismissed. The Revenue's appeals concerning Section 115JB were dismissed, applying findings from other appeals.

PIRAMAL ESTATE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs DCIT, CIR-1(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2055/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

KONARK INFRASTRUCTURE (WATER SUPPLY-UMC) (J/V) ,THANE vs DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4 , THANE

ITA 3024/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that income settled by the Settlement Commission cannot be reopened. It also applied the principle of telescoping, allowing undisclosed income offered in earlier years to be set off against cash investments made by JV partners, thus disallowing protective additions.

M/S. ISAGRO (ASIA) AGROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. SUCCESSOR M/S. P I INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs DCIT, CIRCLE 6(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3585/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the provisions were not allowable as ascertained liabilities in the current year, they could not be taxed again in the subsequent year if offered to income. The addition for purchases was deleted as the assessee provided sufficient evidence of genuineness.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs SMARU GEMS , MUMBAI

ITA 2495/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) concluded the purchases were bogus. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in similar cases, the Tribunal held that the addition should be restricted to the gross profit ratio of the genuine purchases.

FIRST ABU DHABI BANK PJSC,MUMBAI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3279/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the deduction for Nostro account charges, holding that they were earned by foreign banks from sources outside India without nexus to the assessee's PE in India. It also allowed the claim for interest paid to the Head Office to be taxed at the DTAA rate of 5%. Penalty proceedings were deemed premature.

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs ECGC LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 3812/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds related to Section 14A disallowances and Section 10(38) exemption, following High Court precedents. However, grounds related to interest levies and certain disallowances were dismissed as consequential or not pressed.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THANE WEST vs KONARK INFRASTRUCTURE (WATER SUPPLY-UMC)(JV), ULHASNAGAR, ULHASNAGAR

ITA 3060/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that income settled by the Settlement Commission cannot be reopened. It also applied the principle of telescoping, allowing undisclosed income offered in earlier years to be set off against cash investments made by JV partners, thus disallowing protective additions.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THANE WEST vs KONARK INFRASTRUCTURE (WATER SUPPLY-UMC)(JV), ULHASNAGAR

ITA 3061/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the settled assessment for AY 2013-14 could not be reopened under Section 153C. It also allowed the telescoping of undisclosed income declared in earlier years against unexplained cash investments, thereby upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

SMT. PINKI CHETAN SHAH,MUMBAI vs ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT, ITO-20(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3629/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal held that the allotment letter, coupled with advance payment through banking channels prior to the sale deed, should be considered as an agreement for sale for the purpose of Section 56(2)(x). Therefore, the stamp duty valuation as on the date of the allotment letter should be considered.

KONARK INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,ULHASNAGAR vs DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4, THANE

ITA 3025/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in confirming the addition as the assessee provided evidence that the noted transactions pertained to a proposed deal with specific individuals, which ultimately did not materialize. The principle of telescoping was also applied to allow set-off of previously declared undisclosed income against cash investments.

M/S. ISAGRO (ASIA) AGROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. SUCCESSOR M/S. P I INDUSTRIES LTD. ,MUMBAI vs DCIT CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3584/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the provisions were not allowable as ascertained liabilities in the current year, they could not be taxed again in the subsequent year if offered to income. The addition for purchases was deleted as the assessee provided sufficient evidence of genuineness.

RANJAN SURESH GHIA,MUMBAI vs ITO 25(3)(3) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 3575/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s assumption about the limitation period was incorrect. The Tribunal found that the assessment order was manually passed and served, and there was no reason to doubt the assessee's claim of receiving it on 30/01/2018. Computing the 30-day limitation period from 30/01/2018, the appeal filed on 27/02/2018 was within the prescribed time.

AACHMAN VANIJYA PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4) , MUMBAI

ITA 1509/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition for interest on refund was not sustainable as the assessee was not properly intimated as required by Section 245, and thus, the issue was remanded. For the Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal deleted it, finding that the AO failed to record dissatisfaction with the assessee's suo moto disallowance, relying on Supreme Court precedent.

M/S. ISAGRO (ASIA) AGROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. SUCCESSOR M/. P I INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs DCIT CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3583/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the provisions were not allowable as ascertained liabilities in the current year, they could not be taxed again in the subsequent year if offered to income. The addition for purchases was deleted as the assessee provided sufficient evidence of genuineness.

VARSHA RATAN BHALWANKAR,MUMBAI vs ITO WARD 13(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3645/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that once the source of the deposit is established as earlier bank withdrawals, the revenue cannot question the purpose for which the cash was withdrawn or held. The AO's addition was based on suspicion and lacked tangible material.

N P TEXTILE AGENCY,MULUND, MUMBAI vs DCIT 41(2)(1), BKC

ITA 3343/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits even if the assessee failed to appear, rather than dismissing it for want of prosecution. An opportunity of being heard is essential for dispensing justice.

ECGC LIMITED,ECGC BHAWAN vs ACIT, NEW MARINE LINES MUMBAI

ITA 3551/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds regarding disallowance under Section 14A and provision for insurance claims, finding uniformity in treatment with earlier years. The Revenue's appeals concerning Section 115JB were dismissed, following a Special Bench decision.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THANE vs KONARK INFRASTRUCTURE (WATER SUPPLY-UMC)(JV) , ULHASNAGAR

ITA 3058/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that income settled by the Settlement Commission cannot be reopened. It also applied the principle of telescoping, allowing undisclosed income offered in earlier years to be set off against cash investments made by JV partners, thus disallowing protective additions.

ECGC LIMITED,ECGC BHAWAN vs NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, DELHI

ITA 3543/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal addressed the disallowance under Section 14A by applying its prior findings for AY 2016-17 mutatis mutandis to other assessment years, allowing the assessee's ground. The disallowance of provisions for insurance claims was also handled by applying prior findings, leading to the allowance of the assessee's ground. Regarding the exemption under Section 10(38), the Tribunal held that the AO was bound by the CBDT communication dated February 21, 2006, and that the reopening of assessment was a change of opinion without tangible material, thus contrary to law. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the claim of exemption, allowing this ground of the assessee. The grounds concerning the levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C were deemed consequential and dismissed. The ground regarding the assessment order being time-barred for AY 2020-21 was not pressed and thus dismissed. The Revenue's appeals concerning Section 115JB were dismissed, applying findings from other appeals.

FRACTAL ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs ACIT, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3678/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the discount on issue of ESOP is allowable as deduction under section 37(1) of the Act, as it is a mode of compensating employees for their continued services and a part of remuneration. The Tribunal noted that this view was upheld by the Special Bench and affirmed by the Karnataka High Court.

GANESH ATMARAM MOKASHE,PUNE vs DCIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

ITA 7459/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2004-05Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was seeking an opportunity to present their case properly before the Assessing Officer. The Departmental Representative did not oppose this prayer. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restore the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THANE WEST vs KONARK INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED , ULHASNAGAR

ITA 3088/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in confirming the addition as the assessee provided evidence that the noted transactions pertained to a proposed deal with specific individuals, which ultimately did not materialize. The principle of telescoping was also applied to allow set-off of previously declared undisclosed income against cash investments.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THANE vs KONARK INFRASTRUCTURE (WATER SUPPLY-UMC)(JV), ULHASNAGAR,, ULHASNAGAR

ITA 3059/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that income settled by the Settlement Commission cannot be reopened. It also applied the principle of telescoping, allowing undisclosed income offered in earlier years to be set off against cash investments made by JV partners, thus disallowing protective additions.

KONARK INFRASTRUCTURE (WATER SUPPLY - UMC) (J/V),ULHASNAGAR vs DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -4, THANE

ITA 3021/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that income settled by the Settlement Commission cannot be reopened. It also applied the principle of telescoping, allowing undisclosed income offered in earlier years to be set off against cash investments made by JV partners, thus disallowing protective additions.

MARVEL DRUGS PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs ITO-6(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3626/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2006-07Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that penalty could not be sustained for disallowances that were deleted by the ITAT. For issues restored to the CIT(A), the penalty levy was also restored to be decided after the CIT(A)'s decision on the quantum. Penalty was upheld for foreign travel expenses and commission paid to foreign agents as the assessee failed to press these grounds in quantum appeal or provide supporting material.

JITESH JITENDRA SAKHIDAS,MUMBAI vs ITO WARD 30 (1) (5), MUMBAI

ITA 3112/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition was not tenable as it was made solely on the director's statement without corroborative material. The assessee had provided sale agreements and bank statements substantiating payments.

SILVER BROOK FINANCIAL LEARNING CENTRE PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs ITO - 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6420/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence for travel expenses and remanded the issue of professional fees and travel expenses for both assessment years back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

ECGC LIMITED,ECGC BHAWAN vs AO, NEW MARINE LINES,MUMBAI

ITA 3542/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal addressed the disallowance under Section 14A by applying its prior findings for AY 2016-17 mutatis mutandis to other assessment years, allowing the assessee's ground. The disallowance of provisions for insurance claims was also handled by applying prior findings, leading to the allowance of the assessee's ground. Regarding the exemption under Section 10(38), the Tribunal held that the AO was bound by the CBDT communication dated February 21, 2006, and that the reopening of assessment was a change of opinion without tangible material, thus contrary to law. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the claim of exemption, allowing this ground of the assessee. The grounds concerning the levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C were deemed consequential and dismissed. The ground regarding the assessment order being time-barred for AY 2020-21 was not pressed and thus dismissed. The Revenue's appeals concerning Section 115JB were dismissed, applying findings from other appeals.

KONARK INFRASTRUCTURE ( WATER SUPPLY- UMC) (J/V),ULHASNAGAR vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4 , THANE

ITA 3023/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that income settled by the Settlement Commission cannot be reopened. It also applied the principle of telescoping, allowing undisclosed income offered in earlier years to be set off against cash investments made by JV partners, thus disallowing protective additions.

SRINATHJI YAMUNAJI ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

ITA 2597/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that merely because the commission paid was higher than the preceding year did not justify the disallowance, especially when the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes and there was no contrary material. The increase in commission was attributed to difficult market conditions and extra efforts by commission agents.

GANESH ATMARAM MOKASHE,PUNE vs DCIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

ITA 7458/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2003-04Remanded

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the issues were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

ECGC LIMITED,ECGC BHAWAN vs ACIT, NEW MARINE LINES MUMBAI

ITA 3544/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal addressed the disallowance under Section 14A by applying its prior findings for AY 2016-17 mutatis mutandis to other assessment years, allowing the assessee's ground. The disallowance of provisions for insurance claims was also handled by applying prior findings, leading to the allowance of the assessee's ground. Regarding the exemption under Section 10(38), the Tribunal held that the AO was bound by the CBDT communication dated February 21, 2006, and that the reopening of assessment was a change of opinion without tangible material, thus contrary to law. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the claim of exemption, allowing this ground of the assessee. The grounds concerning the levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C were deemed consequential and dismissed. The ground regarding the assessment order being time-barred for AY 2020-21 was not pressed and thus dismissed. The Revenue's appeals concerning Section 115JB were dismissed, applying findings from other appeals.

JS CAPITAL LLC,MUMBAI vs ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE 3 (1) (1) , MUMBAI

ITA 3396/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed26 Feb 2024AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that under Section 70(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, STCL can be set off against STCG from any other asset under a similar computation, irrespective of the differential tax rates. The AO's disallowance was based on a misinterpretation of the provisions and judicial pronouncements.

CROSSEAS CAPITAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 3419/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed26 Feb 2024AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that if an assessment is reopened for a specific reason and no addition is made on that basis, the AO cannot make additions on other grounds without a fresh notice. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed.

BHAGWAN SHREE SHANKESHWAR PARSHAWANATH JAIN DERASAR TRUST,THANE vs ADDL/JT/DY/ACIT/ITO, NFASS.C, DELHI, DELHI

ITA 2057/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed26 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as it was filed beyond the limitation period and the assessee did not appear to seek condonation of delay. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee were not considered on merits.

CANARA BANK, LARGE CORPORATE BRANCH,MUMBAI vs ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

ITA 3627/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed26 Feb 2024AY 2020-21Remanded

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have provided an opportunity to the assessee before rectifying the TDS deduction. It also noted that the depositor had offered the interest income to tax, which could exempt the assessee from demand under the first proviso to Section 201(1A).

GUHAGAR TALUKA KUNBI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI LTD,MUMBAI vs ITO WARD 22 (1) (1), MUMBAI

ITA 3242/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed26 Feb 2024AY 2018-19Allowed

The CIT(A) sustained the addition, holding that while the first proviso to Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) was met, the second proviso was not, as the consideration was not paid through banking channels. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s finding regarding payment was factually incorrect as bank statements showed the entire consideration was paid through banking channels. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had accepted the first proviso was complied with.

SEEMA JETHANI,MUMBAI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NFAC DELHI, DELHI

ITA 2014/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed26 Feb 2024AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while it cannot be said that the entire withdrawn cash was kept intact, the AO was not justified in completely rejecting the availability of cash balance. The Tribunal estimated 80% of larger withdrawals from FY 2014-15 and 2015-16, plus a withdrawal from FY 2016-17, to be available cash, estimating a total available sum of Rs. 30.00 lakhs.

CROSSEAS CAPITAL SERVICES PRIVATE LTD,MUMBAI vs ACIT(CENTRAL)-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 3420/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed26 Feb 2024AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that since no additions were made on the issue for which the assessment was reopened, the reassessment proceedings were invalid. The Tribunal also allowed the club membership fees and stock exchange charges as business expenditure.

CROSSEAS CAPITAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI vs ACIT (CENTRAL -2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 3417/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that if an AO reopens an assessment based on specific reasons but makes additions on entirely different grounds without a fresh notice, the reassessment is not sustainable. The reassessment order was quashed as it lacked jurisdiction.

ACIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs STATE BANK OF INDIA (STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR (NOW MERGED WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA), MUMBAI

ITA 1194/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the AO's appeal lacked merit because the CIT(A)'s direction to recompute interest was in line with Supreme Court and coordinate bench decisions. The practice followed by the Department should also be in consonance with the Income Tax Act.

VIJAYKUMAR MANSUKHLAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs ITO 19 (3) (5), MUMBAI

ITA 3506/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed26 Feb 2024AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal confirmed the addition sustained by the CIT(A) at 6.5% of the bogus purchases, following a coordinate bench's decision on similar facts. The Tribunal also directed the deletion of interest charged under sections 234A and 234C.

POOJA HARDWARE PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs ACIT - 13 (1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3712/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed26 Feb 2024AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law due to the Assessing Officer not disposing of the assessee's objections properly. Therefore, the reassessment order was set aside.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-4(2), CENTRAL RANGE-4, MUMBAI vs M/S NEEV INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1537/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that ad-hoc additions for WIP without project-wise breakup are not justified. Regarding Section 14A, disallowance cannot exceed exempt income, and if interest-free funds exceed investments, no disallowance is warranted. The matter of written-off balances was restored to the AO for individual examination.

SHARANGPANI DINKAR PANT,MUMBAI vs INTERNATIONAL TAX WARD 3(3)(1) , MUMBAI

ITA 3352/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed26 Feb 2024AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee was a non-resident and his income earned in Sri Lanka was taxable only in Sri Lanka as per the India-Sri Lanka DTAA. The lower authorities had not disproved the assessee's non-resident status and the evidence provided.

IL & FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs DCIT-CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3421/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed26 Feb 2024AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that investments not yielding exempt income should be excluded from the disallowance calculation. It further held, following High Court judgments, that dividend earned on shares held as stock-in-trade would not attract disallowance under Section 14A.