ITAT Mumbai Judgments — January 2025

The Tribunal held that the requirement of filing Form 10IE is directory, not mandatory, and the option for the new tax regime was not withdrawn. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the new tax regime.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed declarations under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (DTVSV) for all relevant assessment years (AY 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20) and had paid the tax on the principal damages and total interest as evidenced by Form-2 certificates. Considering that the time limit for the designated authority to process Form-1 for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 had expired, and the tax had been paid under DTVSV, the Tribunal concluded that the revenue's appeals for these years were infructuous. Similarly, the assessee's appeal for AY 2019-20 was dismissed as withdrawn, and the revenue's appeal for AY 2019-20 regarding the deletion of principal damages was also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the requirement of filing Form 10IE is directory, not mandatory, and the option for the new tax regime was not withdrawn. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the new tax regime.

The Tribunal upheld the action of the AO and CIT(A) due to the assessee's failure to appear and produce evidence. An adverse inference was drawn against the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed declarations under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (DTVSV) for all relevant assessment years (AY 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20) and had paid the tax on the principal damages and total interest as evidenced by Form-2 certificates. Considering that the time limit for the designated authority to process Form-1 for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 had expired, and the tax had been paid under DTVSV, the Tribunal concluded that the revenue's appeals for these years were infructuous. Similarly, the assessee's appeal for AY 2019-20 was dismissed as withdrawn, and the revenue's appeal for AY 2019-20 regarding the deletion of principal damages was also dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid because the required approval under Section 151(ii) of the Act was not obtained from the appropriate authority (Principal Chief Commissioner) for assessment year 2017-18, as more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the AO's recalculation of the purchase value was incorrect. Relying on a Bombay High Court judgment, the Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs. 5,32,900/- confirmed by the CIT(A) was unwarranted and deserved to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the intimation dated 30/08/2007 issued under section 143(1) of the Act was invalid. The reasoning was based on the provisions of section 143(1) as they existed prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2008. The Tribunal found that the disallowance of exemption under section 10(38) and deduction under Chapter VI-A were outside the ambit of adjustments contemplated under the then-existing section 143(1). Therefore, the AO had transgressed the authority granted under the Act. The intimation dated 30/08/2007 was quashed. Consequently, the additional ground of appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. The other issues raised by the assessee were rendered academic and left open. The ratio decidendi is that adjustments made under section 143(1) must strictly adhere to the scope permitted by the section as it stood at the relevant time; any deviation renders the intimation void.

The Tribunal held that in cases of bogus purchases, only the profit element embedded in such transactions is taxable. The additions were restricted to the gross profit at 4% of the alleged bogus purchases, and the matter was remanded for recalculation of GP.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal in light of their application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. However, the tribunal granted the assessee the liberty to reinstate the appeal if their application under the said scheme is not accepted.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for admission of additional evidence, considering it crucial for adjudicating the controversy. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after verifying the additional evidence and providing an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that once the trust's registration was cancelled, it lost its status as a registered trust. Consequently, tax on total income should be calculated at slab rates, not MMR, along with prevailing surcharge and cess.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's opt-in to the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with liberty granted to the assessee to seek reinstatement if the scheme application is not accepted.

The Tribunal held that once the trust's registration was cancelled, it lost its status as a registered trust. Consequently, tax on total income should be calculated at slab rates, not MMR, along with prevailing surcharge and cess.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on income offered before the ITSC, especially when no incriminating material was found during the search. The disclosure was made for the purpose of the ITSC application and not as evidence of undisclosed income.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on income offered before the ITSC, especially when no incriminating material was found during the search. The disclosure was made for the purpose of the ITSC application and not as evidence of undisclosed income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a non-corporate entity, was permitted to change his accounting method from mercantile to cash. Since the interest income was not received during the year, and in the case of SPCPL, the interest was waived, the addition made by the AO was not justified.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on income offered before the ITSC, especially when no incriminating material was found during the search. The disclosure was made for the purpose of the ITSC application and not as evidence of undisclosed income.

The Tribunal held that payments made to the USFDA, a government agency, for testing certificates do not constitute 'Fees for Technical Services' and are not governed by the India-USA DTAA. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted a consistent practice by the Revenue in prior and subsequent years to not disallow such payments, upholding the rule of consistency.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(A) and, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a fair opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of substantial justice. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, providing a fair opportunity of hearing to both parties, and allowing the assessee to file further documents.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration in the interest of justice, allowing a last opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The Revenue did not oppose this.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's alternate claim to treat the expenditure as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the total income accordingly.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on income offered before the ITSC, especially when no incriminating material was found during the search. The disclosure was made for the purpose of the ITSC application and not as evidence of undisclosed income.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on income offered before the ITSC, especially when no incriminating material was found during the search. The disclosure was made for the purpose of the ITSC application and not as evidence of undisclosed income.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on income offered before the ITSC, especially when no incriminating material was found during the search. The disclosure was made for the purpose of the ITSC application and not as evidence of undisclosed income.

The Tribunal held that the AO made additions based on mere suspicion and conjectures without sufficient material or enquiry. It also noted that the additions could lead to double taxation as the entire suppressed receipts were presumed to be received in one year.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on income offered before the ITSC, especially when no incriminating material was found during the search. The disclosure was made for the purpose of the ITSC application and not as evidence of undisclosed income.

The Tribunal held that the AO made additions based on mere suspicion and conjectures without sufficient material or enquiry. It also noted that the additions could lead to double taxation as the entire suppressed receipts were presumed to be received in one year.

The Tribunal held that the AO made additions based on mere suspicion and conjectures without sufficient material or enquiry. It also noted that the additions could lead to double taxation as the entire suppressed receipts were presumed to be received in one year.

The Tribunal held that the additions were not sustainable as the evidence was uncorroborated and the procedure under the Indian Evidence Act for electronic documents was not followed. The Tribunal relied on a previous decision concerning the developer of the project.

The Tribunal held that the AO made additions based on mere suspicion and conjectures without sufficient material or enquiry. It also noted that the additions could lead to double taxation as the entire suppressed receipts were presumed to be received in one year.

The Tribunal held that the AO made additions based on mere suspicion and conjectures without sufficient material or enquiry. It also noted that the additions could lead to double taxation as the entire suppressed receipts were presumed to be received in one year.

The Tribunal held that Section 69 of the Income Tax Act is not applicable in this case because the assessee provided a satisfactory explanation and reconciliation for the difference in balances. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to explain the difference before the addition was made, and the subsequent evidence confirmed the reconciliation.

The assessee's Authorized Representative sought permission to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative did not object. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on material found from third parties or statements of third parties without independent corroborative evidence linking such material to the assessee. Presumptions under Section 132(4A) are limited to the person from whom the material is found.

The Tribunal held that the additions were not sustainable as the evidence was uncorroborated and the procedure under the Indian Evidence Act for electronic documents was not followed. The Tribunal relied on a previous decision concerning the developer of the project.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the CIT(A) to grant a fresh opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the additions were not sustainable as the evidence was uncorroborated and the procedure under the Indian Evidence Act for electronic documents was not followed. The Tribunal relied on a previous decision concerning the developer of the project.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should not have reopened the assessment for the same reasons when it had already been framed under Section 147 and previously restricted by the Tribunal. The reopening was deemed to be a change of opinion. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Usha Exports vs. ACIT, the notice for reopening was set aside.

The Tribunal held that procedural errors in reporting should not override substantive rights of the taxpayer and that the claim should be examined by the Assessing Officer after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that capital gains on shares acquired before April 1, 2017, are exempt under the DTAA and cannot be set off against losses. Losses from shares acquired after April 1, 2017, can only be set off against similar gains and cannot be set off against exempt income.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance and lack of substantive hearing at both the assessment and appeal stages. However, to uphold the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration, granting the assessee a last opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's non-cooperation but emphasizing the principle of effective hearing and natural justice, allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. It remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh de novo consideration, instructing to provide proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that an effective hearing is essential for natural justice, not a mere formality. It found that the impugned order was passed without proof of proper service of notices or effective opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the claim for additional TDS credit should be verified by the AO and allowed if the corresponding income was offered to tax. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to verify the TDS claim, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Goetz India Ltd. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the inadvertent error in their application. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the claim for additional TDS credit should be verified by the AO and allowed if the corresponding income was offered to tax. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to verify the TDS claim, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Goetz India Ltd. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.