ITAT Mumbai Judgments — May 2024

The Tribunal held that the retained interest by NBFCs does not constitute 'fees for technical services' under Section 194J or 'commission/brokerage' under Section 194H. Therefore, the bank was not liable for TDS on this amount.

The Tribunal held that the retained interest by NBFCs does not constitute 'fees for technical services' under Section 194J or 'commission/brokerage' under Section 194H. Therefore, the bank was not liable for TDS on this amount.

The Tribunal held that the transactions involving the sale of agricultural land were an "adventure in the nature of trade" and thus chargeable to income-tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". The assessee's reliance on Section 2(14)(iii) was found to be of no assistance.

The Tribunal held that the retained interest by NBFCs cannot be considered as interest under Section 194A as SBI did not borrow funds or incur debt from NBFCs. It also ruled that the retained amount does not fall under fees for professional/technical services (Section 194J) or commission (Section 194H).

The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 54F is available even if the new property is purchased in the name of the spouse or children, provided the capital gains are reinvested. The Tribunal noted that the original property was jointly owned and the sale proceeds were deposited in a joint account from which new properties were purchased.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B was minimal and occurred during the pandemic period, which was a valid reason for condonation. Therefore, the exemption under Section 11 could not be denied.

The Tribunal held that the retained interest by NBFCs does not constitute 'fees for technical services' under Section 194J or 'commission/brokerage' under Section 194H. Therefore, the bank was not liable for TDS on this amount.

The Tribunal held that the excess interest retained by NBFCs was not a 'fee for technical services' under Section 194J or 'commission/brokerage' under Section 194H. It was considered part of the commercial transaction of assigning loan portfolios, not payment for services rendered on behalf of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the retained interest by NBFCs cannot be considered as fees for services rendered by the NBFCs to the bank. The transaction was viewed as a commercial arrangement for the assignment of loan assets, not a service fee arrangement.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) should have decided the grounds on merits. Since the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issues, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal observed that there might be a factual error in the AIR information. The contention of the assessee regarding the transaction of only one property purchase and sale deserved consideration. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the retained interest by NBFCs does not constitute 'fees for technical services' under Section 194J or 'commission/brokerage' under Section 194H. Therefore, the bank was not liable for TDS on this amount.

The Tribunal held that the retained interest by NBFCs does not constitute 'fees for technical services' under Section 194J or 'commission/brokerage' under Section 194H. Therefore, the bank was not liable for TDS on this amount.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to demonstrate with relevant material that the assessee paid any on-money for the flat. The Director's statement and loose papers from the search did not link the assessee to any such payment, and no corroborative evidence was found.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice under Section 270A/274 was defective as it did not specify the reasons for levying the penalty. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal found that the imposition of penalty is discretionary and not automatic, and the AO failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the assessee's explanation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the CIT(A) had correctly considered the additional evidence on merit after the AO failed to respond for six years. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the identity of M/s. Kasturi Commodities Pvt. Ltd. was not doubted by the Revenue. The assessee had provided supporting documents for its purchases and financial statements of M/s. Kasturi Commodities Pvt. Ltd. indicated it was a genuine business with significant turnover and reserves. The AO failed to provide material to disprove the genuineness of the transaction.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee furnished additional evidences before the CIT(A) under Rule 46A, and the AO's remand report did not suggest anything adverse. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s factual findings in deleting the addition.

The Tribunal held that the manual filing was not intentional and, in the interest of natural justice, directed the assessee to file the appeal electronically. The CIT(A) was instructed to accept the electronically filed appeal and condone the delay.

The ITAT noted that previous decisions of the ITAT Mumbai Benches have allowed deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest earned from investments in co-operative banks. The Tribunal referred to the case of Kaliandas Udyog Bhavan Premises Co-op. Society Ltd. where it was held that such interest income is eligible for deduction.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's reasonable cause. Considering the issuance of notices through the ITBA Portal, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's reasonable cause. Considering the issuance of notices through the ITBA Portal, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal noted that similar issues on identical facts for earlier assessment years had been adjudicated by a Coordinate Bench, which restricted the addition to the difference between the gross profit of genuine purchases and bogus purchases. The AO had also restricted the addition to 12.5% of the profit embedded in these transactions. Following the precedent, the Tribunal applied the same logic.

The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, directing the assessee to furnish necessary documents and allowing the Assessing Officer to take an adverse view if the assessee fails to respond.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-compliance, without deciding the appeal on merits. The Tribunal also observed that the AO did not consider the CBDT Instruction No. 3/2017 regarding verification of cash transactions during demonetisation. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the issue back to the AO for a de novo decision, considering the assessee's submissions and the relevant CBDT instructions.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the grounds of appeal and without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the revision order passed by the CIT(E) was set aside by the ITAT. Consequently, the assessment order, which gave effect to the revision order, could not survive. Since no stay was granted on the ITAT's order, it remained effective.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not receive notices during assessment and that the CIT(A) made a conclusion without providing an opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication after considering the assessee's submissions and evidence regarding the section 54 exemption.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) failed to provide a reasoned order on the merits of the additions, despite the assessee's absence. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial burden to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor by furnishing documents, including financial statements from M/s. Euro Diam which confirmed the loan transaction through banking channels. Therefore, the AO was not justified in making the addition.

The Tribunal held that due to technical difficulties in filing online returns and the company being closed down, there was a 'reasonable cause' for not filing the return within the prescribed time. Therefore, the penalty should not be imposed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the gift transactions. The AO failed to bring any material on record to controvert the assessee's submissions and justify the addition. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition made by the AO.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the assessee's submissions and had noted that no submissions were filed, which contradicted the assessee's claim of filing detailed submissions. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: On the issue of transfer pricing adjustment on corporate guarantee, the Tribunal respectfully followed the coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, dismissing the assessee's ground. For the revenue's appeal concerning TP adjustment on business advances to EJP KEC Joint Venture, South Africa, and corporate guarantees, the Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision for AY 2013-14, directing the Assessing Officer to apply a corporate guarantee rate of 0.6%. Regarding short credit for taxes paid in Kenya, the Tribunal found that Rule 128 of the IT Rules, effective from 01.04.2017, could not be applied to a return filed on 27.11.2015. The issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer to allow credit after due verification and hearing the assessee. For short credit of TDS, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify in whose hands the income was shown and allow credit as per law. On the disallowance under Section 14A for book profit computation, the Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2014-15, allowing the ground. The operative directions were to allow credit for Kenyan taxes and TDS, and to apply the 0.6% rate for corporate guarantees.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on a 'change of opinion' as the AO had already considered the issue of compensation payments during the original assessment. Therefore, the notice for reopening under section 148 was quashed.

The Tribunal allowed relief for tax paid in Kenya, directing the AO to allow credit after verification, as the rule requiring Form No. 67 was not applicable retrospectively. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify TDS credit for the JV. Transfer pricing adjustments for corporate guarantees were partly allowed at 0.6%.

The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Since the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) without proper reasons, a cost of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed. The order passed by the CIT(A) was set aside, and all issues were restored to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal by restricting the disallowance under Section 14A to the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee. The Tribunal also remitted the issue of foreign exchange fluctuation to the AO for fresh examination.

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). They followed judicial precedents from the Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts, which supported this view.

The Tribunal held that TDS credit can only be claimed in the hands of the assessee where the income is offered to tax. Since the penalty income was not taxed in the hands of the assessee, the TDS credit could not be granted. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of granting credit to the IPF Trust was not part of the present appeals.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was supported by sufficient cause and a pragmatic approach should be taken. The delay was condoned, and the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, with an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was residing elsewhere and may not have received notices. Given the possibility of non-receipt of notices from the Assessing Officer and CIT(A), and considering principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) deleted the addition primarily because the cheques were not encashed and the seller did not confirm receipt of the full amount. However, the Tribunal found that the issue of whether the transaction was completed, including the status of stamp duty and registration fees, and the subsequent actions of the parties, remained unclear. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for further inquiry.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was justified in making a 100% addition of the bogus purchase amount, citing the Gujarat High Court decision in N.K. Industries Ltd. which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The assessee could not establish the identity of parties or genuineness of transactions.

The Tribunal allowed relief for tax paid in Kenya, directing the AO to allow credit after verification, as the rule requiring Form No. 67 was not applicable retrospectively. The Tribunal also directed the AO to verify TDS credit for the JV. Transfer pricing adjustments for corporate guarantees were partly allowed at 0.6%.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal by restricting the disallowance under Section 14A to the suo-moto disallowance made by the assessee. The Tribunal also remitted the issue of foreign exchange fluctuation to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the AO had valid reasons to believe income had escaped assessment, based on information from the Investigation Wing. The AO had the necessary jurisdiction and obtained proper approval. The purchases from M/s. Prerna Inc. were deemed bogus due to the failure to produce the party or evidence of delivery, and the addition was upheld, though reduced by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: On the issue of transfer pricing adjustment on corporate guarantee, the Tribunal respectfully followed the coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years, dismissing the assessee's ground. For the revenue's appeal concerning TP adjustment on business advances to EJP KEC Joint Venture, South Africa, and corporate guarantees, the Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision for AY 2013-14, directing the Assessing Officer to apply a corporate guarantee rate of 0.6%. Regarding short credit for taxes paid in Kenya, the Tribunal found that Rule 128 of the IT Rules, effective from 01.04.2017, could not be applied to a return filed on 27.11.2015. The issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer to allow credit after due verification and hearing the assessee. For short credit of TDS, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify in whose hands the income was shown and allow credit as per law. On the disallowance under Section 14A for book profit computation, the Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2014-15, allowing the ground. The operative directions were to allow credit for Kenyan taxes and TDS, and to apply the 0.6% rate for corporate guarantees.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits and did not consider the submissions filed by the assessee. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the submissions and providing an opportunity for hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal was filed within the extended time granted by the CBDT for e-filing, especially considering the transition period from physical to e-filing. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay.