ITAT Kolkata Judgments — January 2016

The Tribunal found that the CIT's order rejecting the Section 12A registration was indeed passed without providing the assessee with proper grounds or an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order.

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 Following the CBDT's instructions, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The ITAT, following CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, treated the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn or not pressed. The tribunal dismissed the appeal based on the low tax effect.

The Tribunal held that the addition for suppressed closing stock was not justified as the insurance policy covered both raw materials and finished goods, and the AO did not conduct sufficient inquiries. The Tribunal also found that the purchases were genuine as payments were made by account payee cheques and the supplier was registered, despite the notice issue.

The tribunal held that belated employee PF contributions paid before the return filing date are allowable deductions. For contract labour payments, the disallowance was subject to verification of whether the payee had already paid tax on the amount.

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 was binding on the revenue and applied retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's casual and negligent attitude towards prosecuting the appeal. Citing legal principles and relevant case law, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s deletion of the disallowance, reiterating that Section 14A applies only when exempt income is actually received or receivable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by accepting rental income as business income in principle but upholding the AO's computation without verifying the allowability of expenses. The matter was restored to the AO for verification of expenses.

The Tribunal held that disallowances on labour charges and other expenses were unjustified without specific defects in the supporting documents, given the nature of temporary labour payments. However, a partial disallowance for car expenses and depreciation was deemed reasonable.

The Tribunal deleted the addition under Section 41(1) by following a coordinate bench decision, holding that remission or cessation of liability was not established. However, it upheld the disallowance of labour charges, finding it fair and reasonable due to the lack of verifiable supporting documents.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's casual and negligent attitude, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Following established legal principles, the appeal was treated as unadmitted.

The Tribunal, citing the principle of 'vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subvenient', treated the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it for non-prosecution.