ITAT Kolkata Judgments — December 2015

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. This decision was based on the assessee's consistent absence and the principle that an appeal cannot be prosecuted without the appellant's participation.

The Tribunal noted the repeated non-appearance of the assessee and concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The tribunal held that the tax effect in the appeal was below the monetary limit specified by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular applies retrospectively and is binding on the revenue.

The Tribunal held that all pending appeals with a tax effect below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- were to be treated as withdrawn or not pressed. Consequently, these appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that all appeals filed by the Revenue should be dismissed as the tax effect in each case was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue could not point out any exceptions to this circular.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which revised monetary limits for filing appeals, is binding on the revenue and applies retrospectively. Therefore, appeals with low tax effect, not falling under any exceptions, should be dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the foreign currency loan was utilized for general corporate purposes and thus on revenue account. Consequently, the foreign exchange gain arising from restatement of the loan is taxable as revenue receipt. However, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow deduction for notional exchange losses in subsequent years to maintain consistency.

The Tribunal held that Section 115JB is not applicable to the assessee bank for the assessment year in question. The issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication. The addition for Section 14A disallowance to book profits was deleted. The revenue's grounds regarding rental income and Section 14A for dividend income were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue is bound by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals. Since the tax effect in these cases was below the prescribed limit and did not fall under any exceptions, the appeals were dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the revenue is bound by the CBDT circular, which applies retrospectively to pending appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit and no exceptions applied, the appeal was dismissed on preliminary grounds.

The Tribunal held that the appeals of the revenue deserved to be dismissed due to low tax effect, as per Circular No. 21/2015. The Tribunal dismissed all revenue appeals in limine without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue deserved to be dismissed due to low tax effect, as per Circular No. 21/2015. The Tribunal dismissed all appeals in limine without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay unacceptable and noted that the revenue had not filed its grounds of appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as unadmitted.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the revenue deserved to be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular is binding on tax authorities and applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the revenue deserved to be dismissed in limine due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals and is binding on tax authorities.

The Tribunal held that the revised monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, is applicable retrospectively. Therefore, the appeals below this limit were treated as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the Circular No. 21/2015, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals, applies retrospectively. Since the tax effect in the impugned cases was below the prescribed limits and did not fall under any exceptions, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal followed a Delhi High Court decision and set aside the cross-objection to the AO for deciding based on evidence regarding payee's inclusion of receipts. If true, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) would apply.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that provision for warranty expenses, when made systematically based on past experience, is an allowable business expenditure. The Supreme Court's decision in Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. was cited as precedent.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to short credit in rental income and disallowed depreciation on the house property, relying on previous decisions. It also deleted the ad hoc disallowance of overhead establishment charges and set aside the issue of brought forward long-term capital gains for statistical purposes. The disallowance under Section 14A was also allowed in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that provision for warranty expenses, when made systematically based on past experience, is an allowable business expenditure. The Supreme Court's decision in Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. was cited as precedent.

The Tribunal held that the donors had sufficient taxable income to make the gifts, and the amounts were small and given on various occasions. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to short credit in rental income and disallowed depreciation on the house property, relying on previous decisions. It also deleted the ad hoc disallowance of overhead establishment charges and set aside the issue of brought forward long-term capital gains for statistical purposes. The disallowance under Section 14A was also allowed in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to short credit in rental income and disallowed depreciation on the house property, relying on previous decisions. It also deleted the ad hoc disallowance of overhead establishment charges and set aside the issue of brought forward long-term capital gains for statistical purposes. The disallowance under Section 14A was also allowed in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to short credit in rental income and disallowed depreciation on the house property, relying on previous decisions. It also deleted the ad hoc disallowance of overhead establishment charges and set aside the issue of brought forward long-term capital gains for statistical purposes. The disallowance under Section 14A was also allowed in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeal was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- fixed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Following the CBDT's instructions, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the revenue deserved to be dismissed due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. This circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals and is binding on tax authorities.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. Following CBDT instructions, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the CBDT's revised monetary limit for appeals. Following CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the CBDT's revised monetary limit for filing appeals. Following CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn and dismissed it.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for filing appeals. Following CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, the Tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the rental receipts should be treated as advances as the construction was not completed as per the modified agreement. It was also held that the share capital received was explained, as confirmed by the AO in his remand report.

The Tribunal held that the assessees were entitled to immunity from penalty under Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) as they satisfied the conditions. The phrase 'to be furnished' was interpreted to include returns required under Section 153A.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of accrued interest on debentures, stating it was covered by earlier decisions in the assessee's own case and judicial pronouncements. For another issue, the matter was remanded to the AO to allow the assessee to substantiate its alternative claim with documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that trading in derivatives carried out on recognized stock exchanges is not speculative business as per Section 43(5)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The notification recognizing stock exchanges, though issued later, should be given retrospective effect as the delay was procedural.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed as the income declared in the original return, the return filed under Section 153A, and the income brought to tax were the same. Furthermore, no incriminating material was found during the search, making the additions beyond the scope of Section 153A proceedings.

The Tribunal held that these charges, levied for failure to comply with the bye-laws of the exchange in the course of business, are not penalties for an offence or against public policy. Therefore, they are allowable as business expenditure.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the Assessing Officer's enhancement of rental income was not supported by concrete evidence. It also confirmed that the cessation of liability under Section 41(1) was not applicable as the amounts were personal loans and not trading liabilities.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals) and confirmed the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal followed its previous order on the same issue.

The Tribunal held that trading in derivatives carried out on recognized stock exchanges is not speculative business as per Section 43(5)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The notification recognizing stock exchanges, though issued later, should be given retrospective effect as the delay was procedural.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, agreeing that the transactions were contracts for the sale of goods and not works contracts, thus Section 194C was not applicable. The Tribunal also held that unabsorbed depreciation loss from earlier years could be carried forward indefinitely.

The Tribunal held that while repayment of loans taken for charitable purposes is generally considered application of income, the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the original borrowing and its utilization for charitable activities. Therefore, the claim was not allowed.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that returns were not mandatory if income was below the taxable limit and Form 10B is filed after 12AA registration. Given the Tribunal had already ruled in favour of the assessee for 12AA registration, the case was restored to the CIT.

The Tribunal held that Section 194C was not applicable for payments made before June 1, 2006. For subsequent payments, the Tribunal found that the fluctuating nature of daily workers and the lack of specific findings by the AO warranted a remand. The addition for low drawings was deleted due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decisions, confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the source of the unexplained investments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's share dealing loss should not be treated as speculative loss. This was based on the fact that the income from interest and dividend exceeded the loss from share trading, aligning with the exception provided in Explanation to Section 73.

The Tribunal held that the deposits in the assessee's bank account were explained by the evidence provided and were not unexplained income. It also found that the withdrawals from the company's account were for legitimate business expenses of the company and not personal income of the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision to estimate the income based on a 10% net profit rate applied to the turnover declared in the second Profit & Loss account. The Tribunal found this estimation fair and reasonable, especially considering the assessee's dealings with a Public Sector Undertaking.

The Tribunal held that while the AO might be restricted from rectifying the initial return, appellate authorities have the power to do so. Therefore, the AO was directed to recompute the income based on the correct figure of Rs. 1,36,058 provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in relying on a decision that was later overruled by the jurisdictional High Court. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration of other contentions.