ITAT Mumbai Judgments — February 2025

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the AO had already applied his mind to the issue during the original assessment and there was no concealment of information. The Tribunal also found parity with previous decisions of coordinate benches on identical facts.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) ought to have considered the rectified Form 10AB and restored the issue to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after considering the rectified form and providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to present its case on merits. The impugned order was set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to present its case on merits. The impugned order was set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order, concluding that the assessee was not granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, with directions to provide proper opportunity of hearing and allow the assessee to submit details and raise additional grounds.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to present its case on merits. The impugned order was set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to present its case on merits. The impugned order was set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that admitting additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules without confronting it to the AO is a procedural lapse. Therefore, the issue needs to be restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that there was no dispute regarding the eligibility for deduction or genuineness of expenses, but only a difference in expense allocation between eligible and non-eligible units. Since the assessee furnished all particulars and did not conceal income, the penalty was not leviable.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restored the issues relating to demand and interest to the file of the AO for re-examination. The assessee was given an opportunity to present relevant documents and contentions.

The Tribunal held that booking advances do not qualify as 'saleable area covered by contract or agreement' as they do not transfer significant risks and rewards, nor create legally enforceable rights. Therefore, the AO was incorrect in recognizing income based on these advances.

The Tribunal held that the assessee-employer is not under a statutory obligation to collect evidence to show that employees utilized LTC for travel within India, especially when there was a bona fide belief. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal found the penalty levied under section 271C to be unjustified.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on Form 26AS differences are not sustainable without AO substantiation, and advances from clients cannot be treated as income unless services are rendered. Disallowances under Section 40(a)(i) were also found not applicable in certain cases.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on Form 26AS differences are not sustainable without AO substantiation, and advances from clients cannot be treated as income unless services are rendered. Disallowances under Section 40(a)(i) were also found not applicable in certain cases.

The Tribunal held that in cases involving bogus purchases, the addition should be restricted to the profit element. Following the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in PCIT Vs. Mohammad Haji Adam & Co. and PCIT vs. S.V. Jiwani, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that Section 115-O is a self-contained code, and the DDT is a charge on the company's profits, not on the shareholder's income. The non-obstante clause in Section 115-O overrides other provisions of the Act.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, granting liberty to reinstate them if the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 is not accepted.

The Tribunal noted the discrepancy in the amount of long-term capital loss and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and verification.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal against the assessment order without condoning the delay, while condoning the delay for the penalty appeal but upholding the penalty. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity, remitting both appeals for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case, which allowed the finance lease rental payments as expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal challenging the deletion of disallowance was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not consider all the details furnished by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The lower authorities failed to properly examine the documentary evidence. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal held that there was a bona fide reason for the non-compliance due to the serious illness of the assessee's authorized representative. The case was restored to the CIT(E) for a de novo decision after providing adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee has filed an application under the Vivad se Viswas Scheme (DTVSV) and requested the appeal be treated as withdrawn. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal against the assessment order without condoning the delay, while condoning the delay for the penalty appeal but upholding the penalty. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity, remitting both appeals for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed Form-1 under the Direct Taxes Vivas se Viswas Scheme, 2024, and wished to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on Form 26AS differences are not sustainable without AO substantiation, and advances from clients cannot be treated as income unless services are rendered. Disallowances under Section 40(a)(i) were also found not applicable in certain cases.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (EOW complaint and police reply) and found that lower authorities failed to adequately investigate the assessee's fraud claim or the individuals implicated by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be asked to prove a negative fact and that the revenue should have investigated the named persons. Consequently, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a detailed enquiry, including issuing notices under Section 133(6) to concerned parties, and then to adjudicate the addition.

The Tribunal held that the delays in processing the appeal were excessive and could have led to the assessee's non-compliance. The Commissioner failed to decide the appeal on merits, dismissing it for non-prosecution. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the case for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that in cases involving bogus purchases, the addition should be restricted to the profit element. Following the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in PCIT Vs. Mohammad Haji Adam & Co. and PCIT vs. S.V. Jiwani, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, granting liberty to reinstate them if the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 is not accepted.

The Tribunal, relying on the Delhi High Court decision in *Cargo Motors Private Limited vs DCIT*, held that for Section 14A disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), only investments yielding exempt income should be considered. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-compute the disallowance based on this principle. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal, relying on the Delhi High Court decision in *Cargo Motors Private Limited vs DCIT*, held that for Section 14A disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), only investments yielding exempt income should be considered. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-compute the disallowance based on this principle. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under section 56(2)(x) of the Act cannot be upheld. The Tribunal found that the reduction in agreement value was a bona fide adjustment to accommodate purchasers regarding the GST benefit. The difference in price was within the limits prescribed by the Act for such variations.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not properly examine the additional evidence regarding subsequent TDS deduction and remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to examine the evidence and relevant judicial pronouncements concerning TDS on year-end provisions.

The Tribunal held that filing of Form 10 during re-assessment proceedings is considered within the time allowed under Section 139(4) of the Act. Relying on various High Court and Apex Court decisions, the Tribunal directed the AO to consider Form 10 and decide the availability of exemption under Section 11(2).

The Tribunal held that the AO's calculation of living expenses lacked justification and was not based on any comparable benchmarks. It found that the company bore the assessee's expenses and had already accounted for them.

The Tribunal held that the AO's calculation of living expenses lacked justification and was not based on any comparable benchmarks. It found that the company bore the assessee's expenses and had already accounted for them.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee's appeal had become infructuous as the relief sought was already granted by the CPC through a rectification application.

The Tribunal held that the AO's calculation of living expenses lacked justification and was not based on any comparable benchmarks. It found that the company bore the assessee's expenses and had already accounted for them.

The Tribunal held that an order passed under Section 154 is appealable under Section 246A(c) of the Act, and therefore, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds. On merits, the Tribunal reaffirmed that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments in co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), citing various judicial precedents and distinguishing the Supreme Court's Totgars judgment.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should recompute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) by considering only investments that yielded exempt income. Regarding referral fees, the Tribunal found that the issue of bills on holidays needs further examination by the Assessing Officer and remitted the matter back for proper inquiry.

The Tribunal held that since the Assessee intended to settle the dispute under the VSVS and was willing to deposit the determined amount, the appeals were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to seek recall of the order in case of failure to deposit or settle.

The Tribunal held that an order passed under Section 154 is appealable under Section 246A(c) of the Act, and therefore, the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds. On merits, the Tribunal reaffirmed that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments in co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), citing various judicial precedents and distinguishing the Supreme Court's Totgars judgment.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal, dismissing the appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to revive the appeal if the assessee does not succeed under the 'Vivad-se-Sishwas, 2024 Scheme'.

The Tribunal held that since the Assessee intended to settle the dispute under the VSVS and was willing to deposit the determined amount, the appeals were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to seek recall of the order in case of failure to deposit or settle.