ITAT Mumbai Judgments — April 2025

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits and passed a non-speaking, summary order, which amounts to a contravention of statutory obligations. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Proviso to Section 28(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, excludes remuneration received by a partner from a firm, which has not been allowed as a deduction to the firm under Section 40(b), from being taxed under the head 'Profit & Gains of Business or Profession'. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to dispose of the appeal. Since the charging of interest under Section 234A is mandatory and its amount depends on a pending quantum appeal, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the interest after the quantum appeal is decided.

The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged the initial burden by providing documentary evidence for purchase and sale of shares through banking channels and online platforms. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions on similar penny stock cases, the Tribunal deleted the additions.

The Tribunal held that additions based on a 'dumb document' (image) without corroboration and on a third-party statement without establishing the assessee's connection or ownership are not sustainable. Presumptions under Section 132(4A)/292C cannot be invoked against the assessee for documents not prepared by them or their employees.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the extended period prescribed by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA). Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and order for AY 2015-16 were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully discharged the onus under Section 68 of the Act. It noted that the AO denied the assessee the opportunity to cross-examine a key witness, which was crucial for establishing the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the impugned addition.

The Tribunal held that the flat allotted to the assessee as compensation for creating nuisance to the developer constitutes a capital receipt and is not taxable income. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench decision with identical facts.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting notional commission added by the CIT(A) and allowing the ground regarding the applicability of Section 115BBE for transactions prior to April 1, 2017. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed as the issues were already dealt with in the original assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the matter warranted reconsideration and decided to remit the case back to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting notional commission added by the CIT(A) and allowing the ground regarding the applicability of Section 115BBE for transactions prior to April 1, 2017. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed as the issues were already dealt with in the original assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged the initial burden by providing documentary evidence for purchase and sale of shares through banking channels and online platforms. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions on similar penny stock cases, the Tribunal deleted the additions.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the extended period prescribed by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA). Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and order for AY 2015-16 were quashed.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as having become infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was therefore not justified in dismissing the appeal on grounds of limitation.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting notional commission added by the CIT(A) and allowing the ground regarding the applicability of Section 115BBE for transactions prior to April 1, 2017. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed as the issues were already dealt with in the original assessment.

The Tribunal held that for Ground No. 1, concerning the disallowance under section 43B, the assessee would be entitled to the deduction for bonus paid during the year, out of the outstanding amount as on April 1, 2019, provided the required supporting documentary evidence is furnished. The issue was restored to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for verification and allowance of the claim for bonus of Rs. 86,97,237/- paid during the year. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. For Ground No. 2, the Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the CPC in respect of Rs. 3,09,701/- amounted to a double disallowance, as it was clearly made suo motu by the assessee at the time of filing its return. This ground of appeal was allowed. The appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the business loss claimed by the assessee is allowable under Section 28 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the assessee is engaged in share trading and is a SEBI-registered sub-broker. The AO disallowed the loss on penny stocks based on a general report and suspicion, without independent inquiry or evidence. The assessee provided scrip-wise trade details, contract notes from SEBI-registered brokers, and demonstrated that the alleged penny stock transactions were a small fraction of its total turnover. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance. Regarding bad debts, the Tribunal observed that the AO had allowed a similar claim in the preceding year and that the assessee fulfilled the conditions of Section 36(2). The Tribunal emphasized the need for uniformity and consistency in treatment when facts and circumstances are identical, even though res judicata does not apply. The AO's order was silent on justification for a divergent approach. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions made by the AO. It found that the transactions were conducted through a stock exchange via a registered broker, payments were made through banking channels, and STT was paid. The Tribunal also noted the absence of allegations of price rigging against the assessee and followed jurisdictional High Court decisions favoring the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the land purchase dispute and subsequent payments warranted further verification. The Tribunal allowed the claim for deduction of interest expenses, considering it an inadvertent error in claiming it under the wrong head.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed submissions, albeit with a slight delay, and the e-filing window was open. The applications were rejected at the threshold without a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on seized material and statements from third parties without corroborative independent evidence linking the assessee. The denial of cross-examination to the assessee violated principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on seized material and statements from third parties without corroborative independent evidence linking the assessee. The denial of cross-examination to the assessee violated principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order passed in the name of a deceased person, after being notified of the death, is invalid and bad in law. The Assessing Officer should have brought the legal heir on record.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to prove the alleged bogus nature of the transactions. The assessee provided evidence of genuine transactions through a SEBI-registered broker on the stock exchange, and no cash was paid. The AO did not examine the broker or issue summons.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) is directed to issue fresh hearing notices to the correct email address provided by the assessee and afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to a medical emergency. It admitted additional evidence and restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act regarding subsidies is prospective and cannot be applied retrospectively. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat fertilizer subsidy as a capital receipt, following a coordinate bench's ruling.

The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged the initial onus for most creditors by providing identity, creditworthiness, and transaction genuineness, except for Shri Anil Jadhav. The AO failed to disprove the submissions for the deleted additions.

The Tribunal held that the fertilizer subsidy is a capital receipt and not taxable, following its coordinate bench's decision. It also upheld the exclusion of this subsidy for book profit computation under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal held that the fertilizer subsidy is a capital receipt and not taxable, following its coordinate bench's decision. It also upheld the exclusion of this subsidy for book profit computation under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal held that the fertilizer subsidy is a capital receipt and not taxable, following its coordinate bench's decision. It also upheld the exclusion of this subsidy for book profit computation under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal noted that the ex-parte order was passed because the assessee did not comply with notices. However, to meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing evidence of genuine purchases. The AO failed to rebut this evidence or provide an opportunity for cross-examination, making the additions unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing evidence of genuine purchases. The AO failed to rebut this evidence or provide an opportunity for cross-examination, making the additions unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing evidence of genuine purchases. The AO failed to rebut this evidence or provide an opportunity for cross-examination, making the additions unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the 'Hardship Compensation' received by the assessee is a capital receipt and not revenue in nature. It is akin to rehabilitation allowance and not taxable as income. The receipt reduces the cost of acquisition of the asset.

The Tribunal held that the 'Hardship Compensation' received by the assessee is a capital receipt and not revenue in nature. It is akin to rehabilitation allowance and not taxable as income. The receipt reduces the cost of acquisition of the asset.

The Tribunal noted that the AO relied on statements from investigation wing and persons who admitted to providing accommodation entries. However, the search team did not unearth any incriminating material to support the AO's claim that the received funds were accommodation entries. The CIT(A) had granted relief, deleting the additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because it was issued beyond the three-year period from the end of the assessment year and without the required approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner, as mandated by the amended Section 151 of the Act. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the appellant's affidavit detailing reasons for the delay. On merits, the Tribunal found that the ex-parte additions were made due to the wrong PAN and non-service of notices, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner was invalid due to insufficient time to apply his mind and lack of specific reasons. The Tribunal also noted that the approval was for multiple assessment years, contrary to legal requirements.

The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on presumptions and conjectures, not on credible material. It noted that SEBI had not found fault with the assessee or the company regarding share price manipulation, and there was no evidence of the assessee being part of any syndicate or handling cash to rig prices.

The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on presumptions and conjectures, not on credible material. It noted that SEBI had not found fault with the assessee or the company regarding share price manipulation, and there was no evidence of the assessee being part of any syndicate or handling cash to rig prices.

The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on presumptions and conjectures, not on credible material. It noted that SEBI had not found fault with the assessee or the company regarding share price manipulation, and there was no evidence of the assessee being part of any syndicate or handling cash to rig prices.

The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on presumptions and conjectures, not on credible material. It noted that SEBI had not found fault with the assessee or the company regarding share price manipulation, and there was no evidence of the assessee being part of any syndicate or handling cash to rig prices.

The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on presumptions and conjectures, not on credible material. It noted that SEBI had not found fault with the assessee or the company regarding share price manipulation, and there was no evidence of the assessee being part of any syndicate or handling cash to rig prices.

The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on presumptions and conjectures, not on credible material. It noted that SEBI had not found fault with the assessee or the company regarding share price manipulation, and there was no evidence of the assessee being part of any syndicate or handling cash to rig prices.

The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on presumptions and conjectures, not on credible material. It noted that SEBI had not found fault with the assessee or the company regarding share price manipulation, and there was no evidence of the assessee being part of any syndicate or handling cash to rig prices.

The Tribunal held that the penalty for disallowance of physician samples was not sustainable as the addition itself was deleted by a prior ITAT order. The penalty related to the transfer pricing adjustment for import of raw materials was also deleted as this issue was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme. The penalty for technical knowhow fees was deleted as the addition was already deleted by the Tribunal.