ITAT Mumbai Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. DR did not object to the withdrawal request. The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the findings of the ld. CIT(A) were silent regarding the documentary evidence claimed to have been filed by the assessee during the appellate and remand proceedings. The Tribunal was of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) should have provided findings on the evidence furnished by the assessee concerning each of the 12 parties from whom loans were taken and treated as unexplained cash credit. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) was directed to decide each loan creditor on the basis of the documentary evidence filed in respect of such loan credits, after affording the assessee a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. The issue of disallowance of interest was implicitly linked to the addition under Section 68 and was also restored. No specific issue was left undecided.

The Tribunal held that trading in derivatives on a recognized stock exchange, as per amended Section 43(5), is not a speculative transaction. Therefore, derivative losses are business losses eligible for set-off against other business income.

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. DR had no objection to the appellant's request. After considering the submissions and the letter filed, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn and granted liberty to revive it if the VSVS application was rejected.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground regarding disallowance under Section 14A, partly allowed the ground related to commission on corporate financial guarantees, and allowed additional grounds for proportionate deduction of R&D expenses. The revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that levying late filing fee under Section 234E was unjustified given the peculiar facts where TDS was deducted but not paid, and the entries were reversed. However, the assessee cannot claim a refund of TDS on amounts not paid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence, including Form 26AS, GST invoices, and bank records, which prima facie supported the genuineness of the expenditure. The denial by the proprietor, without further inquiry, was not conclusive. The Tribunal also noted the possibility of a mistaken identity.

The Tribunal held that income earned from transportation of cargo through feeder vessels is eligible for the benefit under Article 8 of the India-Germany DTAA, following previous decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and coordinate benches. The Tribunal also directed the AO to grant TDS credit after verification.

The ITAT acknowledged the assessee's argument that the disputed INR 7,96,970/- might be non-taxable member contributions based on mutuality, and that it was incorrectly claimed under Section 80P(2)(d). Noticing that neither the CIT(A) nor the Assessing Officer had adequately examined this specific aspect, the Tribunal restored the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that trade receivables cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. It also noted that adding back trade receivables could lead to double addition if sales were already included. The issue was restored for verification of double addition.

The Tribunal found that the issues required factual verification. The Tribunal deemed it fit to remand the issues back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, allowing the assessee to present its case and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the cash depositors. However, considering that the Ld. AR submitted a paper book with documents not examined by lower authorities, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that trade receivables cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. It also noted that adding back trade receivables could lead to double addition if sales were already included. The issue was restored for verification of double addition.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground regarding Section 14A disallowance for AY 2005-06, partly allowed the ground related to corporate financial guarantees, and allowed additional grounds for proportionate deduction of R&D expenses. The revenue's appeal concerning employee PF contributions was dismissed due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal decided various grounds. In one instance, disallowance under Section 14A was deleted due to sufficient own funds. Additions for corporate guarantee commission were directed to be recomputed. Issues regarding Section 80HHC deductions were largely restored to the AO. Penalties were deleted due to invalid notices. Incentives from the Jammu & Kashmir industrial policy were generally treated as capital receipts.

The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A) issued notices at short intervals and on the IT portal, and due to the holiday period and lack of time, the assessee could not respond. The Tribunal found that ex-parte orders were passed without going into the merits.

The Tribunal held that Section 167B(2) of the Income Tax Act applies when a member of an AOP has income exceeding the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. In such cases, the AOP's income is taxed at the Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR), which includes a 37% surcharge.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground regarding disallowance under Section 14A, partly allowed the ground related to commission on corporate financial guarantees, and allowed additional grounds for proportionate deduction of R&D expenses. The revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's ground regarding disallowance under Section 14A, finding no disallowance was warranted. It partly allowed the ground related to commission on corporate financial guarantees. The revenue's appeal concerning employee PF contributions was dismissed due to low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a co-operative society registered under the relevant Act and holding a banking license, is not required to deduct TDS on interest paid to other co-operative societies under Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act. The exemption provided under this section continues to apply to co-operative banks when paying interest to co-operative societies.

The Tribunal held that a co-operative bank is a distinct entity from a co-operative society. Therefore, the exemption provided to co-operative societies for TDS on interest paid to members is not applicable to a co-operative bank paying interest to other co-operative societies.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a co-operative society registered under the relevant Act and holding a banking license, is not required to deduct TDS on interest paid to other co-operative societies under Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act. The exemption provided under this section continues to apply to co-operative banks when paying interest to co-operative societies.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a co-operative society registered under the relevant Act and holding a banking license, is not required to deduct TDS on interest paid to other co-operative societies under Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act. The exemption provided under this section continues to apply to co-operative banks when paying interest to co-operative societies.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a co-operative society registered under the relevant Act and holding a banking license, is not required to deduct TDS on interest paid to other co-operative societies under Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act. The exemption provided under this section continues to apply to co-operative banks when paying interest to co-operative societies.

The Tribunal held that interest and dividend income earned by a co-operative society from investments in co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. This decision followed previous rulings by coordinate benches of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a co-operative society registered under the relevant Act and holding a banking license, is not required to deduct TDS on interest paid to other co-operative societies under Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act. The exemption provided under this section continues to apply to co-operative banks when paying interest to co-operative societies.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had correctly opted for the new tax regime and filed the necessary form. The discrepancy in the form was due to a system glitch on the income tax portal regarding the principal contact and signatory, which did not invalidate the claim.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a co-operative society registered under the relevant Act and holding a banking license, is not required to deduct TDS on interest paid to other co-operative societies under Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act. The exemption provided under this section continues to apply to co-operative banks when paying interest to co-operative societies.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately explained the delay and that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds. Citing a Supreme Court precedent on 'sufficient cause', the Tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the invocation of Section 249(4)(b) by the CIT(A) was not justified as the assessee had not filed a return of income and the CIT(A) failed to specify the advance tax amount payable or issue a proper show cause notice. The additions made in the assessment order were also noted to be duplicative.

The Tribunal found that the company had undergone a name change in 1993, and the CIT had subsequently granted approval to the gratuity scheme in the assessee's current name, TechNova Imaging Systems (P) Ltd. Employees Group Gratuity Cumla Scheme, via an order dated 17/04/1995. Thus, the gratuity fund was indeed approved, and the assessee was entitled to the exemption u/s 10(25)(iv).

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a co-operative society registered under the relevant Act and holding a banking license, is not required to deduct TDS on interest paid to other co-operative societies under Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act. The exemption provided under this section continues to apply to co-operative banks when paying interest to co-operative societies.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a co-operative society registered under the relevant Act and holding a banking license, is not required to deduct TDS on interest paid to other co-operative societies. This is based on the exemption provided under Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act, as clarified by the Finance Bill, 2015.

The Tribunal held that the additions were unsustainable as they were not based on cogent evidence, particularly regarding the alleged cash loan transactions. The reassessment proceedings were also found to be invalid due to the notice being issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act, which exempts co-operative societies from deducting TDS on interest paid to other co-operative societies, also applies to co-operative banks. Therefore, the assessee was not required to deduct TDS.

The Tribunal held that the additions were unsustainable as they were not based on cogent evidence, particularly regarding the alleged cash loan transactions. The reassessment proceedings were also found to be invalid due to the notice being issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation as it was not issued within the 'surviving time limit' as per the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal. Additionally, the approval for the notice was obtained from the incorrect authority.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the expenses as genuine business expenditures necessary for maintaining commitments to flat owners, even if revenue was recognized in prior years. The Tribunal noted that the revenue had not appealed a similar allowance in a prior assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on a mere change of opinion by the AO, as the issue was already examined and accepted in the original assessment. There was no new tangible material to justify the reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a co-operative society conducting banking business, is not required to deduct TDS on interest paid to other co-operative societies under Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act. This exemption continues to apply to co-operative banks when paying interest to co-operative societies.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not deny the benefit of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act to the appellant simply because the allotment letter was in his wife's name, as all evidence indicated joint ownership and payment. The surrounding circumstances and documentary evidence supported the appellant's claim of co-ownership.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude the contested companies from the comparable list. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s fact-based findings and judicial precedents supporting the exclusion.

The Tribunal held that the additions were unsustainable as they were not based on cogent evidence, particularly regarding the alleged cash loan transactions. The reassessment proceedings were also found to be invalid due to the notice being issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude the contested companies from the comparable list. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s fact-based findings and judicial precedents supporting the exclusion.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) to consider the application for condonation of delay and decide the matter on merits.

The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act, which exempts co-operative societies from deducting TDS on interest paid to other co-operative societies, also applies to co-operative banks. Therefore, the assessee was not required to deduct TDS on interest paid to other co-operative societies.

The Tribunal held that a co-operative bank is a type of co-operative society and that the exemption under Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for interest paid by a co-operative society to another co-operative society, continues to apply to co-operative banks. Therefore, the assessee was not required to deduct TDS.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the 'surviving time limit' as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the Rajeev Bansal case. Consequently, the notice and the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh decision. This was done in the interest of substantial justice, ensuring the assessee gets due opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a co-operative society registered under the relevant Act and holding a banking license, is not required to deduct TDS on interest paid to other co-operative societies under Section 194A(3)(v) of the Income Tax Act. The exemption provided under this section continues to apply to co-operative banks when paying interest to co-operative societies.