ITAT Mumbai Judgments — April 2025

The Tribunal held that the reopening notices for both assessment years were issued beyond the prescribed limitation period and/or without the requisite prior approval, making them invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders passed were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening notices for both assessment years were issued beyond the prescribed limitation period and/or without the requisite prior approval, making them invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders passed were quashed.

For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal noted that the project consisted of 7 wings (A to G), and while completion certificates for Wings A to F were obtained before March 31, 2008, Wing-G was not completed by that date. The AO disallowed the entire deduction under Section 80-IB(10) for failure to meet the completion requirement of Section 80-IB(10)(a)(ii). The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal, in its order, did not explicitly state its finding on this specific issue for AY 2008-09 in the provided excerpt, but the context suggests it was part of the consolidated decision. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal decided that the issue of violation of Section 80-IB(10)(a)(ii) would be decided based on the decision for AY 2010-11. The claim for Wings A to F was allowed, following the decision for AY 2007-08. However, the issue concerning Wing-G was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication in light of the decision in Vandana Properties (supra). Regarding the violation of Section 80-IB(10)(f), the issue was also restored to the AO for examination, with a direction to disallow deduction on a pro-rata basis if violated. The Tribunal restored the issue of alleged double deduction on the sale of flats to the AO for verification, directing that if it was a re-allotment due to non-fulfillment of conditions, the deduction should be granted for the balance profit.

For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal noted that the project consisted of 7 wings, and the commencement certificate was issued on May 2, 2000. The deduction under Section 80-IB(10) required completion by March 31, 2008. While Wings A to F were completed, Wing G was not. The Tribunal observed that in the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08, the CIT(A) had allowed deduction for Wings A-F and denied it for Wing G, treating it as a separate project. The Tribunal decided to restore the issue of Wing G to the AO for de novo adjudication in light of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's decision in Vandana Properties (supra). For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal applied its findings from AY 2010-11 regarding the violation of Section 80-IB(10)(a)(ii) and Section 80-IB(10)(f). The deduction for Wings A to F was allowed, following the settled position for AY 2007-08. The issue concerning Wing G was restored to the AO for adjudication in light of Vandana Properties (supra). Regarding the alleged double deduction claim, the issue was also restored to the AO for verification of whether the flat was re-sold or re-allotted. If re-allotted due to non-payment, the deduction was to be granted. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the provision for unexpired risk should not be added back for computing book profits under Section 115JB, as it is a statutory requirement for insurance businesses and not specifically excluded by the Act. The disallowance of payments to the head office was upheld by the CIT(A) but the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) and the addition to book profits were deleted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the deduction claimed under Section 80G of the Act towards the CSR expenditure incurred. The Tribunal reasoned that while CSR expenses are governed by Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, and are mandatory for certain companies, the intention of the legislature, as clarified by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, was to exclude CSR expenses from business expenditure. The Tribunal noted that the Finance Act, 2015, introduced specific exceptions for donations to Swach Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund under Section 80G(2)(a), implying that other donations, if meeting the conditions of Section 80G, would be eligible. The Tribunal distinguished the case of PVR Raju (supra) relied upon by the Revenue, stating that there is no requirement to prove the voluntariness of the donation for claiming deduction under Section 80G in this context. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the claim subject to the assessee satisfying other requirements of Section 80G. Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee was allowed. The issue of reopening of assessment (Ground No. 1) was not explicitly decided in the provided excerpt, but the appeal was ultimately partly allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Both parties agreed to the disposal of the appeal under the scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the physical appeal was filed in time, and the subsequent electronic filing was a formality. The CIT(A)'s order was not on merit, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on the grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit at 4% of turnover, agreeing that once books are rejected, only the profit element can be added. The assessee's appeal against this estimation was dismissed.

For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal noted that the project comprised seven wings (A to G), with the first commencement certificate issued on May 2, 2000. The assessee was required to complete the project by March 31, 2008. While Wings A to F had completion certificates by this date, Wing-G did not. The AO disallowed the entire deduction, and the CIT(A) upheld this. The Tribunal, referencing the assessee's own case for AY 2007-08 where partial relief was granted, decided to restore the issue of Wing-G to the AO for de novo adjudication in light of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's decision in Vandana Properties (supra). For AY 2013-14, regarding the violation of Section 80-IB(10)(a)(ii), the Tribunal applied its findings from AY 2010-11, allowing deduction for Wings A to F based on the AY 2007-08 order and restoring the issue of Wing-G to the AO for de novo adjudication. Regarding Section 80-IB(10)(f), the issue was restored to the AO for examination, with a direction to disallow deduction on a pro-rata basis if violated. The issue of re-selling/re-allotting the same flat was also restored to the AO for verification, with a direction to grant deduction if it was a re-allotment due to non-fulfillment of conditions by the original allottee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of submission and held that the assessee had not furnished supporting documents for the loan utilization. However, considering the assessee's submission regarding a CBDT circular and the lack of evidence considered by lower authorities, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for further examination.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit at 4% of turnover, agreeing that once books are rejected, only the profit element can be added. The assessee's appeal against this estimation was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on account of unsecured loans could not be made in the hands of the assessee without the aid of any incriminating material found from the premises of the assessee during the search and seizure operation. The Tribunal referred to the provisions of Section 132(4) and Section 158BB(1) read with Section 158B(b) of the Act, stating that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) can be used in evidence for a block assessment only if it is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search. A statement not relatable to any incriminating document or material found during the search cannot, by itself, trigger a block assessment. The undisclosed income must be computed based on evidence and material found during the search. The Tribunal set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and allowed Ground No. 5 of the assessee's appeal. Consequently, since the addition was deleted, other grounds challenging the merit of the addition were rendered academic and not adjudicated upon.

The Tribunal held that the provision for unexpired risk should not be added back for computing book profits under Section 115JB, as it is a statutory requirement for insurance businesses and not specifically excluded by the Act. The disallowance of payments to the head office was upheld by the CIT(A) but the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) and the addition to book profits were deleted by the CIT(A).

For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal noted that the project consisted of seven wings, and completion certificates were obtained for Wings A to F before March 31, 2008, but not for Wing-G. The AO disallowed the entire deduction under Section 80-IB(10) for failure to complete the entire project. The CIT(A) upheld this. The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's argument based on its own case for AY 2007-08 where partial relief was granted, decided to restore the issue of Wing-G to the AO for de novo adjudication in light of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's decision in Vandana Properties (supra). For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal applied its findings from AY 2010-11 regarding the violation of Section 80-IB(10)(a)(ii), allowing deduction for Wings A to F and restoring the issue of Wing-G to the AO. Regarding Section 80-IB(10)(f), the issue was restored to the AO for examination, with a direction to disallow deduction on a pro-rata basis only if the provisions were violated. The issue of claiming deduction twice on the same flat was also restored to the AO for verification of re-sale versus re-allotment, with directions to grant deduction if it was a re-allotment due to non-fulfillment of conditions. The appeal by the assessee for AY 2013-14 was allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the provision for unexpired risk should not be added back for computing book profits under Section 115JB, as it is a statutory requirement for insurance businesses and not specifically excluded by the Act. The disallowance of payments to the head office was upheld by the CIT(A) but the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) and the addition to book profits were deleted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the addition could not be sustained as it was made on the basis of an uncorroborated photocopy of a document and the existence of the bank account was not confirmed. Furthermore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed on the ground of limitation.

The Tribunal held that the provision for unexpired risk should not be added back for computing book profits under Section 115JB, as it is a statutory requirement for insurance businesses and not specifically excluded by the Act. The disallowance of payments to the head office was upheld by the CIT(A) but the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) and the addition to book profits were deleted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 and the reassessment orders were invalid due to improper sanctioning authority, as required by Section 151(ii) of the Act for reassessments initiated after three years from the end of the assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 and the reassessment orders were invalid due to improper sanctioning authority, as required by Section 151(ii) of the Act for reassessments initiated after three years from the end of the assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 and the reassessment orders were invalid due to improper sanctioning authority, as required by Section 151(ii) of the Act for reassessments initiated after three years from the end of the assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 and the reassessment orders were invalid due to improper sanctioning authority, as required by Section 151(ii) of the Act for reassessments initiated after three years from the end of the assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 and the reassessment orders were invalid due to improper sanctioning authority, as required by Section 151(ii) of the Act for reassessments initiated after three years from the end of the assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not validly served on the assessee as it was sent to an incorrect address. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings initiated based on this invalid notice were quashed.

The Tribunal held that charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C is mandatory and automatic. The savings bank interest is credited quarterly and is ascertainable, making it subject to advance tax provisions. The appellant's arguments were found to be illogical and baseless.

For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal noted that the assessee's project comprised 7 wings (A to G). While completion certificates for Wings A to F were obtained before March 31, 2008, Wing-G was still under construction and lacked a completion certificate by that date. As per Section 80-IB(10)(a)(ii), the entire project must be completed by the stipulated date. Since this condition was not met for Wing-G, the AO's disallowance of the entire deduction under Section 80-IB(10) was upheld. The Tribunal found no dispute regarding the facts that the project had 7 buildings, the first commencement certificate was issued on May 2, 2000, and completion certificates for Wings A to F were obtained before March 31, 2008, but Wing-G was not completed. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal for AY 2008-09. For AY 2013-14, the Tribunal decided that the issue of violation of Section 80-IB(10)(a)(ii) would be decided based on the findings for AY 2010-11. The deduction for Wings A to F was allowed, following the decision for AY 2007-08. However, the issue concerning Wing-G was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication in light of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's decision in Vandana Properties (supra). Regarding the violation of Section 80-IB(10)(f), the issue was also restored to the AO for examination, with a direction to disallow deduction on a pro-rata basis if violated. The issue of the same flat being sold twice was restored to the AO for verification of re-allotment versus re-sale. If re-allotment, the deduction for the balance profit was to be granted. The assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the additions made by the AO were likely double disallowances as the assessee had already disallowed these amounts in its return. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify these contentions and delete the additions if confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must adjudicate on merits. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the appellant's prima facie good case on merits. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing an opportunity to the appellant.

The Tribunal noted that the detailed explanation for the Rs. 3,28,559/- was not provided to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals for AY 2004-05 and 2005-06 on issues like recreational and miscellaneous expenses, following previous decisions. The revenue's appeal for AY 2004-05 was dismissed due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that if the commission paid to the Indian subsidiary was at arm's length, no further attribution of income to the PE is warranted. Relying on previous judgments for AY 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2017-18, the Tribunal found the addition untenable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication, taking a lenient view as the appellant is a trust.

The Tribunal noted that the Coordinate Bench had already remitted the assessment issue back to the AO. Following judicial discipline, the penalty appeal was also remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the appellant an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals for AY 2004-05 and 2005-06 on issues like recreational and miscellaneous expenses, following previous decisions. The revenue's appeal for AY 2004-05 was dismissed due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that the final assessment order was passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, as the DRP directions were received by the AO on June 30, 2022. Therefore, the additions made in the assessment order are not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the transactions between the assessee and its channel partners were on a principal-to-principal basis. Therefore, no commission was paid, and discounts offered to LFS did not constitute rent, making TDS provisions inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that the transactions between the assessee and its channel partners were on a principal-to-principal basis. Therefore, no commission was paid, and discounts offered to LFS did not constitute rent, making TDS provisions inapplicable.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals for AY 2004-05 and 2005-06 on issues like recreational and miscellaneous expenses, following previous decisions. The revenue's appeal for AY 2004-05 was dismissed due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that the appellant trust, being small and lacking dedicated personnel, deserved one more opportunity to be heard. The CIT had not pointed out defects in submitted details or violations of charitable activities.

The Tribunal held that the transactions between the assessee and its channel partners were on a principal-to-principal basis. Therefore, no commission was paid, and discounts offered to LFS did not constitute rent, making TDS provisions inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that the sale consideration of shares cannot be assessed as unexplained cash credit and the long-term capital gains declared by the assessee cannot be doubted. The Assessing Officer failed to establish the assessee's involvement in price rigging and did not find fault with the documentary evidence provided.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the AO primarily relied on the Investigation wing's report without independent inquiry and that the report might not directly link the assessee to the alleged price rigging. The Tribunal also referred to the assessee providing documentary evidence of share transactions.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals, allowing them to keep all contentions open.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals, allowing them to keep all contentions open.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Article 8 of the India-Malaysia DTAA are similar to Article 8 of the India-UK DTAA. Citing previous tribunal orders and the Bombay High Court decision in DIT vs. Balaji Shipping UK Ltd., the Tribunal found that income attributable to voyages undertaken from India, even by availing slot hire facilities, is not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the sale consideration of shares cannot be assessed as unexplained cash credit and the long-term capital gains declared by the assessee cannot be doubted. The Assessing Officer failed to establish the assessee's involvement in price rigging and did not find fault with the documentary evidence provided.

The Tribunal held that the facts of the case were distinguishable from the Supreme Court's decision relied upon by the Revenue. Following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal found the addition unsustainable.