ITAT Mumbai Judgments — June 2024

SMITA CONDUCTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs CIRCLE 3(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 64/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the suo motu disallowance of Rs. 2,35,708 computed by the assessee on a scientific basis, which was accepted in previous years by a coordinate bench, should be taken into account for both normal assessment and book profit computation. The AO was directed to verify the computation of the suo motu disallowance.

HARISONS STEEL LIMITED,WADA THANE vs DY CIT 12(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3957/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that additions made on an estimated basis solely on a show cause notice without any final order or independent verification by the Assessing Officer are not justified. The assessee had not debited any expense or claimed CENVAT credit in its profit and loss account.

DHARMENDRA JAYANTILAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs ACIT-31(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 3897/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide an opportunity of being heard regarding materials gathered during inquiries, which is a mandatory requirement. Relying on jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal found that when share transactions are conducted through stock exchanges, banking channels, and supported by documentation, capital gains cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits.

GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-NFAC , MUMBAI

ITA 780/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2024AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the impugned appeals for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 were not covered under the VSVS declaration. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeals as withdrawn was incorrect.

J B CLOTHING INDIA PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1146/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate on merits, and the assessee did not cooperate. The Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the CIT(A) by setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and restoring the issues for adjudication on merits.

ACIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs M/S BOFA SECURITIES INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS DSP MERRILL LYNCH LTD ), MUMBAI

ITA 6175/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2024AY 2003-04Partly Allowed

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal on equity broking services by directing adjustments to the ALP. It allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeal on port fee charges and administrative support services. The revenue's appeal on interest expenses was also dismissed.

GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-NFAC, MUMBAI

ITA 781/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the impugned appeals for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 were not covered under the VSVS declaration. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeals as withdrawn was incorrect.

BOFA SECURITIES INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DSP MERILL LYNCH LTD,MUMBAI vs ACIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5416/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2024AY 2002-03Partly Allowed

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal on equity broking services by directing adjustments to the ALP. It allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeal on port fee charges and administrative support services. The revenue's appeal on interest expenses was also dismissed.

JMD INTERNATIONAL ,MUMBAI vs ITO 17(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1138/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18Allowed

The tribunal noted that the cash deposits were duly recorded in the books of the second partnership firm, and the bank account was opened with the first firm's PAN by mistake. However, these facts were explained for the first time before the CIT(A) and not examined due to the lack of cash books. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI vs M/S BOFA SECURITIES INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S DSP MERRILL LYNCH LIMITED ), MUMBAI

ITA 5425/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2024AY 2002-03Partly Allowed

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal on equity broking services by directing adjustments to the ALP. It allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeal on port fee charges and administrative support services. The revenue's appeal on interest expenses was also dismissed.

DHARMENDRA JAYANTILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs ACIT-31(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 3879/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide an opportunity of being heard regarding materials gathered during inquiries, which is a mandatory requirement. Relying on jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal found that when share transactions are conducted through stock exchanges, banking channels, and supported by documentation, capital gains cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits.

PRATEEK RAJENDRA KAPADIA (E-FILING),MUMBAI vs ITO WARD 1(3), MUMBAI

ITA 67/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2024AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the agreement to purchase the new asset was made on 21.06.2014, more than one year before the sale of the original asset on 22.07.2015. However, the Tribunal considered the fact that the new asset was under construction at the time of the agreement. The occupancy certificate was received by the developer on 16.09.2015, and possession was given to the assessee on 16.11.2015. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Smt. Beena K. Jain, which held that the relevant date for purchase for the purpose of Section 54 deduction is when the assessee obtains possession of the flat. The Tribunal also referred to the Pune Tribunal's decision in Ayushi Patni vs. DCIT, which stated that the date of possession is the date of actual purchase when the property was not in existence at the time of the agreement. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the date of possession, 16.11.2015, should be considered the date of actual purchase, which falls within the permissible period of two years from the sale of the original asset. The assessee's claim for exemption under Section 54 was allowed.

CEVA LOGISTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO CMA CGM LOGISTICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs ITO-6(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 273/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16Withdrawn

Based on the assessee's submission that a duplicate appeal was filed, the Tribunal dismissed the present appeal as withdrawn, as requested by the assessee.

VIDARBHA INDUSTRIES POWER LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1419/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2024AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the average value of investments for Rule 8D should consider only investments yielding exempt income. It was also held that no disallowance of interest expenditure is required if own funds exceed investments. Further, disallowances under Section 14A cannot be added to the net profit for computing book profit under Section 115JB.

M/S BOFA SECURITIES INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS A DSP MERILL LYNCH LTD ),MUMBAI vs ACIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5864/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2024AY 2003-04Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method was appropriate for benchmarking equity broking transactions, and the average brokerage rates from foreign clients should be considered as ALP. For administrative support services, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's cost plus 25% mark-up, rejecting the TPO's nil mark-up and the CIT(A)'s ad-hoc 15% mark-up.

M/S MIRC ELECTRONICS LTD.,MUMBAI vs ACIT, CC-10(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4484/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on the merits of the case. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had not appeared before the CIT(A) in response to notices. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) and remit the matter back for de novo adjudication on merits. The Tribunal directed the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending hearings and making submissions before the CIT(A) and to refrain from seeking adjournments except for compelling reasons. The CIT(A) was directed to ensure observance of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal explicitly stated that no observations were made on the merits of the case. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

VIJAY PADHARINATH AVHAD,MUMBAI vs CIT WARD 3(4), THANE

ITA 1019/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2024AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on an estimated basis. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Co-ordinate Bench decisions supporting this proposition.

HARISONS STEEL LTD,WADA THANE vs DCIT 12(2)(2) , MUMBAI

ITA 3943/MUM/2023[AY 2011-12]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2024Allowed

The Tribunal held that additions made on an estimated basis solely on a show cause notice without any final order or independent verification by the Assessing Officer are not justified. The assessee had not debited any expense or claimed CENVAT credit in its profit and loss account.

FORTUNE CARS PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, , MUMBAI

ITA 1140/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed10 Jun 2024AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not respond to the PCIT's notices, leading to an ex-parte revision order. The assessee argued that their reply was filed but not received by the PCIT due to simultaneous penalty proceedings. The Tribunal found merit in this argument and decided to provide another opportunity.

DCIT-CC-4(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs RUBBERWALA HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 3504/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the seized document (GCL-HD-1) was not incriminating. It was a shareholding pattern document verifiable from the company's records filed prior to the search.

DCIT-CC-4(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs HEKS INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

ITA 3576/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, seized material must be incriminating to justify additions. In this case, the seized document was found not to be incriminating as it represented a shareholding pattern already verifiable from company records.

GREENWORLD CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs DCIT CC-4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3436/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the statement of the employee was based on a mistaken understanding of facts and was factually incorrect. The assessee, being a contractor, could not have received on-monies for units sold by the project owner.

DCIT-CC-4(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs HILTON INFRASTRUCTURE, MUMBAI

ITA 3532/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A) that a specific document (GCL-HD-1) was not incriminating. It was a shareholding pattern document, verifiable from the company's records prior to the search, and did not demonstrate undisclosed income.

HILTON INFRASTRUCTURE,MUMBAI vs DCIT CC-4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3453/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A) that a specific document (GCL-HD-1) was not incriminating. It was a shareholding pattern document, verifiable from the company's records prior to the search, and did not demonstrate undisclosed income.

DCIT-CC-4(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs RUBBERWALA REALTY, MUMBAI

ITA 3531/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, seized documents and statements without incriminating material did not justify additions for unsecured loans and interest. For abated years, the Tribunal ruled that only the profit element embedded in on-money receipts, not the entire amount, was taxable, upholding the assessee's offer of 8% profit.

NILESH RAGHAVJI SALVA,MUMBAI vs ITO, WARD 23(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 819/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the impugned order of the NFAC was passed ex parte without affording an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee. While the NFAC noted that notices were sent through ITBA on multiple dates, the order did not mention whether these notices were served upon the appellant or if any attempt was made to send physical notices. The Tribunal emphasized that an effective hearing is a sine qua non for the provisions of Section 250(2) of the Act. Since no effective hearing was given, the principles of natural justice were violated. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the NFAC. The NFAC was directed to decide the appeal afresh after giving the appellant an effective opportunity to present its case. The assessee was directed to present its case before the NFAC within 60 days from the date of the order. The appeal was disposed of and partly allowed for statistical purposes.

DCIT-CC-4(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs RUBBERWALA HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 3505/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the seized document (GCL-HD-1) was not incriminating. It was a shareholding pattern document verifiable from the company's records filed prior to the search.

DCIT-CC-4(2), MUMBAI vs RUBBERWALA HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 3508/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition of unsecured loans and interest thereon was unsustainable for unabated assessment years as it was not based on incriminating material. For on-monies, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's offer of 8% profit. The addition of unexplained cash was deleted by applying the principle of telescoping against declared profits from on-monies.

HILTON INFRASTRUCUTRE,MUMBAI vs DCIT CC-4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3449/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2021-22Partly Allowed

The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A) that a specific document (GCL-HD-1) was not incriminating. It was a shareholding pattern document, verifiable from the company's records prior to the search, and did not demonstrate undisclosed income.

RUBBERWALA HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs DCIT CC-4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3448/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the principle of telescoping, allowing the set-off of intangible profits against unexplained cash found. The addition on account of on-monies received on sale of flats was allowed to the extent of the assessee's offer of 8%.

HILTON INFRASTRUCTURE,MUMBAI vs DCIT CC-4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3451/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A) that a specific document (GCL-HD-1) was not incriminating. It was a shareholding pattern document, verifiable from the company's records prior to the search, and did not demonstrate undisclosed income.

NITINKUMAR MULCHAND SHAH,MUMBAI vs ITO-24(3) (2), MUMBAI

ITA 4824/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2012-13Remanded

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that the assessee was unable to properly represent his case before the CIT(A) due to unfamiliarity with the faceless procedure. To ensure justice, the ITAT restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A), granting the assessee a final opportunity to submit all necessary explanations and documentary evidence within 60 days.

HILTON INFRASTRUCUTRE,MUMBAI vs DCIT CC-4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3454/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: 1. Regarding the jurisdiction for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 under the fourth proviso to Section 153A, the Tribunal found that the notings on Page 52 of Annexure A-1, showing payments of Rs. 55 lacs and Rs. 80 lacs, did not represent income in the form of an 'asset' as defined in Explanation 2 to the fourth proviso. These were inferred as expenditure. Since the condition precedent of having income in the form of an 'asset' exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs was not met, the reopening of assessments for these AYs was vitiated. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the assessment orders for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. On the issue of on-money receipts, the Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in the on-monies should be assessed to tax, not the entire value. Agreeing with the consistent view of judicial pronouncements and following the assessee's offer, the Tribunal upheld the assessee's offer of 8% of the on-money receipts as fair and reasonable. The AO was directed to delete additions made on account of on-monies over and above the assessee's offer of 8% in AYs 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20, and 2020-21. The ratio is that for on-money receipts in real estate, only the profit element is taxable, and an estimation of 8% is considered reasonable based on precedent. 3. Concerning the unaccounted rental income for AY 2021-22, the Tribunal confirmed the addition of Rs. 2,40,000/-. The assessee was unable to dislodge the fact that Mr. S K Choudhary was operating a business from the assessee's premises and admitted to paying rent in cash. The Tribunal found it impossible for someone to operate commercially from the premises without the assessee's knowledge or involvement, thus upholding the Ld. CIT(A)'s finding.

ABHIR ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs ACIT-NFAC, MUMBAI

ITA 4585/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016Dismissed

The Tribunal observed that the assessee demonstrated a casual and non-serious approach in complying with notices at all stages and failed to appear on the hearing date. The grounds of appeal were a mere sheet of allegations without corroborative evidence.

PEEL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 973/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive proper notices through the portal, thereby denying a reasonable opportunity before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the matter concerning the upheld disallowances and other grounds of appeal was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication without expressing any view on the merits of the case.

RUBBERWALA HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs DCIT CC-4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3447/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the seized document (GCL-HD-1) was not incriminating. It was a shareholding pattern document verifiable from the company's records filed prior to the search.

RUBBERWALA HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs DCIT CC-4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3446/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the seized document (GCL-HD-1) was not incriminating. It was a shareholding pattern document verifiable from the company's records filed prior to the search.

RUBBERWALA HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs DCIT CC 4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3445/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the seized document (GCL-HD-1) was not incriminating. It was a shareholding pattern document verifiable from the company's records filed prior to the search.

RUBBERWALA HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs DCIT CC-4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3444/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the seized document (GCL-HD-1) was not incriminating. It was a shareholding pattern document verifiable from the company's records filed prior to the search.

RUBBERWALA REALTY,MUMBAI vs DCIT CC-4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3443/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal found that for unabated assessment years, additions cannot be made based on material that is not incriminating. The seized document in question was determined to be a shareholding pattern, not incriminating evidence.

ITO (IT) TDS-2, MUMBAI vs TATA STEEL LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 225/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: Fixed7 Jun 2024AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction as the revenue failed to produce orders under Section 120(4)(b) and Section 127 of the Act. Consequently, the assessment order was set aside.

RUBBERWALA REALTY,MUMBAI vs DCIT CC-4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3442/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal found that for unabated assessment years, additions cannot be made based on material that is not incriminating. The seized document in question was determined to be a shareholding pattern, not incriminating evidence.

RUBBERWALA REALTY,MUMBAI vs DCIT CC-4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3441/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal found that for unabated assessment years, additions cannot be made based on material that is not incriminating. The seized document in question was determined to be a shareholding pattern, not incriminating evidence.

PARSHAV GLOBAL TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

ITA 980/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: Heard7 Jun 2024AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that in the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to represent its case before the CIT(A). A cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed on the assessee for non-compliance.

DCIT CC-3(2), MUMBAI, AIR INDIA BUILDING, MUMBAI vs ARUN JAIN, MUMBAI

ITA 2731/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2021-22Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. For M/s. Gulathi Enterprises, the Tribunal noted the assessee's prompt actions and the lack of response from GST authorities to the AO's queries. For M/s. Ankit International, the Tribunal found that the AO relied on old search and survey evidence from 2017-2018, not specific to the current assessment year, and the assessee had provided corroborative evidence.

RUBBERWALA REALTY,MUMBAI vs DCIT CC-4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3440/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal found that for unabated assessment years, additions cannot be made based on material that is not incriminating. The seized document in question was determined to be a shareholding pattern, not incriminating evidence.

CRANES REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3 (1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 958/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: Fixed7 Jun 2024AY 2012-13N/A

The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance with notices from the AO and CIT(A), and their failure to appear before the Tribunal or file a power of attorney. Observing the assessee's casual and non-serious approach, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal without delving into the merits of the case. They stated that the assessee was not interested in proper prosecution, but left room for revival through a Miscellaneous Application.

DDIT (IT) 2(1), MUMBAI vs SIEMENS AG, MUMBAI

ITA 2179/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that software supplied as an integral part of equipment, with restrictions on use and compatibility only with the assessee's hardware, should not be treated as royalty. Regarding the DMRC contract, the Tribunal found no evidence of an AOP, as the contract clearly delineated separate scopes of work and liabilities for each party.

RUBBERWALA REALTY,MUMBAI vs DCIT CC-4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3439/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal found that for unabated assessment years, additions cannot be made based on material that is not incriminating. The seized document in question was determined to be a shareholding pattern, not incriminating evidence.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(1)(6), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs ARCIL SHALIMAR WIRES INDUSTRIES LIMITED II TRUST, MUMBAI

ITA 2909/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed7 Jun 2024AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench, held that the trusts are valid and not AOPs, as per the Indian Trust Act. However, it also found the trusts to be revocable, making the income taxable in the hands of the Security Receipt holders under Sections 61-63.