ITAT Mumbai Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal held that merely making a claim that is not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, nor does non-acceptance of a claim by the revenue automatically attract penalty. The penalty proceedings were initiated on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars or under-reporting, but the facts indicated bonafide explanations and full disclosure.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted adequate opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A), and the CIT(A) merely reiterated the AO's findings without independent analysis. Therefore, the matter was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had inadvertently submitted incorrect certificates and that a relevant provision cited for rejection was omitted from the statute. The Tribunal decided to set aside the order to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, with liberty to recall the order if circumstances warrant. The grounds raised were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 and the subsequent assessment order were void ab initio as the approval was not granted by the competent authority as per Section 151 of the Income Tax Act. The provisos to Section 151, relied upon by the Revenue, were inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2023 and were not applicable to the period in question.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the AO for a denovo assessment, providing adequate opportunity for cross-examination and furnishing relevant statements.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied the opportunity for effective cross-examination of key witnesses, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A)'s finding that corroboration with other evidence negated the need for cross-examination was deemed unjustifiable. Therefore, the case was remanded to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that merely making a claim that is not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 270A is not automatic and requires specific conditions to be met, which were not satisfied in this case as the assessee provided bonafide explanations and full disclosures.

The Tribunal held that merely making a claim that is not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or under-reporting of income. The AO's and CIT(A)'s orders levying penalties were not sustained.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity of being heard and that the CIT(A)'s decision appeared to be made without proper inquiry. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) to pass a detailed order on merits.

The Tribunal dismissed grounds 1 to 5 of the Revenue's appeal as they did not arise from the lower authorities' orders. Regarding ground 6, concerning the disallowance under Section 14A, the Tribunal followed previous decisions of the co-ordinate bench and its own orders, holding that Section 14A is not applicable to insurance companies.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the sufficient cause presented. Subsequently, based on the assessee's submission about the Vivad se Viswas Scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on suspicion rather than concrete reasons to believe income had escaped assessment, and that the disallowance of the loss was not supported by adverse evidence. The trades were found to be genuine, facilitated by BSE incentive schemes.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided necessary documentation, but it appeared not to have been considered by the CIT(Exemption). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the matter for fresh consideration by the CIT(Exemption) with an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of jewellery as it was considered nominal and justifiable for a high net worth individual from a wealthy family. However, the issue regarding the addition for watches was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh valuation and consideration, as the assessee contended the valuation was incorrect and the watches were not real.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was invalid as it was issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the new law, even considering the relaxation provided by TOLA and the judicial pronouncements.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the ground of appeal concerning the levy of interest under Section 234B. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on this specific issue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with adequate opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) also erred in not properly considering the lack of cross-examination opportunity. Therefore, the case was remanded to the AO for fresh assessment after providing the opportunity for cross-examination.

The assessee has filed an application under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (VSVS, 2024). As the assessee opted to settle the dispute under VSVS, 2024, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal observed that while the assessee's predominant object was promotion of powerlooms and export, its activities like organizing exhibitions and earning participation fees could be construed as trade or business. The principle of mutuality was also discussed in relation to non-member receipts. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to decide in line with Supreme Court judgments and earlier Tribunal directions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity for cross-examination of parties whose statements were relied upon by the lower authorities. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment, providing the assessee with an opportunity for cross-examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. The opportunity provided was insufficient given the circumstances and the short notice. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the AO for de novo assessment to allow the assessee to cross-examine relevant parties and to furnish copies of statements.

The Tribunal found that the opportunity for cross-examination provided to the assessee was insufficient and a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment, with a direction to provide the assessee with adequate opportunity to cross-examine the parties whose statements were relied upon and to furnish copies of those statements.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied the opportunity for cross-examination of key witnesses, violating principles of natural justice. The lower appellate authority's decision to restrict the commission to 1% without addressing the cross-examination issue was deemed unjustifiable.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to cross-examine parties whose statements were relied upon by the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the AO to provide the assessee with an opportunity for cross-examination and to furnish copies of the statements.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was denied an effective opportunity for cross-examination of parties whose statements were relied upon by the lower authorities. This violation of natural justice rendered the assessment order questionable. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO.

The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition, finding that the Assessee had prima facie discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient evidence that the AO failed to rebut. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, concluding that the Assessee proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions and that the addition was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that merely making a claim that is not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or under-reporting income. It emphasized that the assessee provided full disclosure and bona fide explanations, and the additions were due to a difference of opinion or change in the head of income, not willful concealment or deliberate inaccuracy. Therefore, the penalty was not leviable.

The tribunal noted that the order giving effect to the PCIT's order was acceptable to the assessee. Consequently, the assessee did not wish to proceed with the appeal, and the grounds raised were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were conducted on a regulated stock exchange through registered brokers, supported by documentary evidence, and routed through banking channels. The AO failed to provide cogent material to prove the transactions were sham or that the assessee was involved in price rigging.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it to be unintentional and not attributable to the assessee. The case was remanded to the CIT(E) to provide an opportunity for hearing and to pass a detailed order on merit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied an effective opportunity to cross-examine parties whose statements were relied upon by the lower authorities, thus violating principles of natural justice. The case was remanded back to the AO for a de novo assessment to provide proper opportunity for cross-examination and furnish necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the initial manual appeal was timely, and the subsequent e-filing was done without delay following the CIT(A)'s instruction. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal on procedural grounds of delay without considering its merits. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and directing the CIT(A) to decide the matter on its merits.

The Tribunal, considering the submissions and the letters filed by both the assessee and the revenue, dismissed both appeals as withdrawn. A liberty was granted to revive the appeals if the DTVSV application does not materialize.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the assessee had presented a reasonable cause. The Tribunal also remitted the issue back to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard and rectify defects.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee may have failed to respond, the penalty for the same default cannot be levied twice. Citing precedent, the penalty was restricted to Rs. 10,000/- for the first default.

The Tribunal held that the AO's ad hoc attribution of income to the PE was not sustainable as it lacked a proper Functions, Assets, and Risks (FAR) analysis and was not based on the ALP principle. The Tribunal found that the major deliverables were prepared in Italy, and the Indian PE had a limited role of providing on-site technical assistance.

The Tribunal noted the submissions and letters filed by both the assessee and the revenue for withdrawal of their respective appeals. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence from the assessee regarding fixed deposits and the affidavit concerning cash deposits. It remanded the issues of unexplained fixed deposits (Section 69), unexplained cash deposits (Section 69A), and unexplained investment in the flat (Section 69) back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and verification, citing a lack of proper inquiry and cryptic order by the CIT(A) for the flat investment. The ground regarding the non-issue of notice under Section 143(2) was left open, and both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order did not provide details of hearing or notices and that the email address for notices was incorrect. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication after granting an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and directed the CIT(E) to decide the application afresh. The CIT(E) is to consider the correct Form 10AC and grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied proper opportunity for cross-examination of parties whose statements were relied upon by the lower authorities. This violation of natural justice principles rendered the assessment order questionable. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the AO to provide the opportunity for cross-examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 137 days by relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji and Ors. The issues raised in both appeals were restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.