ITAT Mumbai Judgments — May 2025

The Tribunal found that the assessee was non-compliant and failed to provide complete details. Relying on a High Court decision in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Buniyad Chemicals Ltd., the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reasons for reopening the assessment were based on conjecture and lacked concrete evidence. The statements collected did not indicate any benefit or profit from the circular trading, nor did they provide evidence of commission paid. Therefore, the reopening under Section 147 was not justified.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's role as an accommodation entry provider, noted the lack of complete documentary evidence to substantiate claims. Citing the Hon'ble High Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Buniyad Chemicals Ltd., the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for de novo assessment, directing the assessee to provide details of commission received from identified beneficiaries.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment were not sustainable as they were based on guesswork and conjecture, lacking concrete evidence of commission income. The Tribunal also noted that in a related case (KGR Enterprises), no commission was found to be paid to the assessee, further weakening the AO's premise.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 34,54,250/-, holding that the AO relied on third-party statements without providing an opportunity for cross-examination and failed to establish the cash payment. The addition of Rs. 6,75,000/- was also deleted as the difference was within the retrospective tolerance band for stamp duty valuation.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was an accommodation entry provider and had admitted to receiving commission. Given the lack of complete documentary evidence from the assessee, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the AO for a de novo assessment. The AO is directed to consider the percentage of commission proved by documentary evidence.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was non-compliant and failed to provide complete details of the transactions. Citing a High Court decision in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Buniyad Chemicals Ltd., the Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the issue back to the AO for a de novo assessment, directing the assessee to provide details of commission received and the AO to determine the income based on verified evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's computation of capital loss was factually correct and accepted during processing of the return. The differential amount received by the assessee was correctly treated as part of the capital loss. The addition made by the Revenue under 'Income from Other Sources' was found to be erroneous.

The Tribunal observed that the Assessee's claim that the transactions were commercial in nature was not properly examined due to the non-submission of relevant documents before the lower authorities. Citing CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2017, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing that the Assessee be given a reasonable opportunity to present all supporting documents.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was non-compliant in providing details of beneficiaries. Relying on a High Court decision, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for a fresh assessment, directing the assessee to provide details of beneficiaries and commission received.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was not justified as the reasons recorded by the AO were based on surmise and guesswork, lacking concrete evidence of commission income. The AO's premise of commission being earned was not supported by material on record, especially in light of statements from involved parties indicating no benefit from such transactions.

The Tribunal held that the reopening under Section 147 was not justified as the reasons recorded were based on surmise and guesswork, lacking concrete evidence. Statements from involved parties indicated no benefit or profit from the transactions. The Tribunal also noted that no commission was added in the case of a related entity (KGR Enterprises).

The Tribunal held that no addition or disallowance could be made on a fresh issue when the original ground for reopening was not sustained. The addition made under Section 14A was therefore unsustainable and deleted.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of penalty proceedings for concealment of income while levying penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is a fatal defect. The notice and penalty order must clearly specify the limb of the section under which the penalty is levied, and any ambiguity renders the order invalid.

The Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions and various case laws, decided most of the grounds in favor of the assessee. Notably, issues concerning the taxability of advance license and passbook benefits were decided based on established precedents, leading to the deletion of additions made by the AO. Various deduction claims under sections 80-IB and 80HHC were also allowed, following previous rulings. However, some grounds, particularly those related to revenue's appeals regarding sales tax refund and certain other items, were decided against the assessee.

The tribunal set aside the impugned ex-parte order and remanded the case back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide complete details of transactions with beneficiaries. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Buniyad Chemicals Ltd., the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The AO is directed to verify the commission earned and pass an order accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not conducted requisite verification for the three issues pointed out by the CIT(E). Therefore, the CIT(E) was justified in initiating revision proceedings u/s 263. The matter was directed back to the AO for fresh verification and order.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh opportunity to the assessee and to decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee bank could not be considered an 'assessee in default' for non-deduction of TDS on LFC payments. This was due to the binding nature of the Hon'ble Madras High Court's interim order dated 16.02.2015, which was in effect during the relevant period and restrained the bank from deducting tax at source. Deducting tax under such circumstances would have amounted to contempt of court.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on moulds and dyes should be treated as revenue expenditure due to their short life and frequent replacement. The capital investment subsidy was not to be reduced from the cost of assets as it was for industrial development. The excise duty refund was held to be a capital receipt and not taxable.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure on moulds and dies is revenue in nature due to their short life and frequent replacement. The capital investment subsidy was not to be reduced from the cost of assets. The excise duty refund was treated as a capital receipt. Disallowances under Section 14A were to be re-examined by the AO, and the deduction under Section 80-IB for the Jammu unit was allowed based on consistent past practice.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should have considered the substance of the application rather than dismissing it based on a technical error in mentioning the wrong sub-clause. The rejection based on a minor mistake led to unnecessary litigation.

The Tribunal held that the reasons for reopening the assessment were not sustainable as they were based on surmise and guesswork without concrete evidence. The Tribunal noted that even in the case of a related entity, no commission was added, and thus, presuming commission income for the assessee was unjustified. The reopening and subsequent additions were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80IA should be allowed from the Gross Total Income, not restricted to business income. It also held that Section 80IA(5) pertains to quantum determination and not to limiting deductions. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant credit for the Dividend Distribution Tax.

The Tribunal condoned the 49-day delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause. Noting that the CIT(A) had issued notices allowing very short compliance time (less than two weeks), the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits, directing the assessee to make requisite compliance.

The Tribunal held that Section 80IA deduction is to be allowed from Gross Total Income and not restricted to 'Profits & Gains of Business or Profession'. The scope of Section 80IA(5) is limited to determining the quantum of deduction. Regarding the Dividend Distribution Tax credit, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant the credit after verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) and that the stamp duty value as on the date of the agreement (03.09.2010) should be adopted for valuation, not the stamp duty rate on the date of registration.

The Tribunal noted a delay in filing the appeal and the absence of a condonation application, making it liable for dismissal. However, the assessee's counsel sought to withdraw the appeal to challenge the original order.

The Tribunal held that the AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income but levied penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, and similarly for A.Y. 2017-18, initiated for misreporting but levied for under-reporting. This discrepancy between the notice and the penalty order rendered the penalty proceedings invalid, as per settled legal proposition.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had conducted appropriate inquiries and taken a plausible view supported by judicial precedent by making a 6% addition. It reiterated that an order cannot be treated as erroneous or prejudicial under Section 263 merely because the PCIT holds a different view when two plausible views are possible. Therefore, the PCIT's order setting aside the assessment was set aside, and the original assessment order by the AO was reinstated.

The Tribunal decided several grounds of appeal in favor of the assessee, allowing deductions and deleting additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). Notably, the taxability of advance license and passbook benefits were held to be non-taxable until imports were made, following consistent judicial precedents. Deductions for data access fees, salary, wages, and certain other expenses were also allowed.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making the addition as it was based on the report of the DGIT Investigation Wing without sufficient computation, verification, and further enquiries from the brokers. The reassessment was initiated without cogent reasons to believe income had escaped assessment.

The Tribunal, following its earlier decisions in similar cases involving the same society and builder, held that the compensation received was exempt. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the issue is covered by a coordinate bench's decision, which followed the Delhi High Court's ruling that amendments to Section 14A are prospective. Since no exempt income was earned, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the exemption under Section 10(25) of the Act, and importantly, is not even required to file a return for this purpose. The disallowance by the AO based on the belated filing of the return was deemed to be without basis.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds of appeal regarding the non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) and the validity of reopening. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for considering these grounds and also to adjudicate the merits of the additions afresh.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not conducted independent inquiries or verifications and remained silent on issuing notices to relevant parties like ICICI Bank or Mr. Subhash Akerkar. Despite the assessee's claim of returning the amounts and having no contact with Mr. Akerkar, the AO failed to consider these submissions. The Tribunal also noted that the source of funds and source of source were disclosed but not properly investigated by the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had sought withdrawal of the appeal after being questioned about not challenging the original order. Considering the assessee's request, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation because the information from Swiss authorities was not available for the period in question, and the notice was served before the protocol came into operation. The penalty was deleted as it was based on the addition, which was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged their onus by providing primary documents and that the transactions were carried out through proper banking channels and the shares were dematerialized. The deletion of addition by the Ld. Commissioner was affirmed.

The Tribunal allowed the taxability of advance license benefit, as it was established that no income had accrued until imports were made and raw materials consumed. Similarly, DEPB benefit was also allowed, following consistent High Court and Tribunal decisions. Various deductions related to data access fees, salary, wages, and expenses under sections 80-IB and 80HHC were allowed based on earlier precedents. However, the revenue's appeal regarding sales tax refund and delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF&ESI was allowed.

The Tribunal held that no addition can be made solely based on discrepancies in Form 26AS when the assessee has provided explanations and evidence of TDS deductions, indicating potential double deductions. The ad-hoc disallowance was also deleted for lack of specific findings.