ITAT Kolkata Judgments — July 2016

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the AO failed to reconcile cost audit report discrepancies with the audited financial data and that the assessee had sufficient own funds to cover advances to directors.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) must be restricted to the actual provision made in the books of account, following a High Court precedent. Therefore, the assessee's ground of appeal on this issue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was contrary to the CBDT's policy decision regarding monetary limits for appeals. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to rework profits and summarily rejected the exemption claim. Evidence indicated manufacturing activities like blending and processing, supported by excise registration and approvals. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the AO. It was found that the assessee had provided explanations and evidence for the stock discrepancies, and the AO's calculation of profit was flawed due to incorrect valuation of closing stock.

The Tribunal held that the treatment of the asset by the purchaser does not determine the nature of capital gain in the hands of the seller. Since the assessee never claimed depreciation on the right and held it for over 36 months, it was correctly treated as Long Term Capital Gains.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's belief regarding the mutual fund transactions was bonafide and due to ignorance of the law, not intentional concealment. Following precedents, it was decided that a mere disallowance does not automatically lead to a penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal as they failed to appear and did not file any adjournment. The appeal was therefore liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The CIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the GP ratio was correctly applied to the suppressed sales, as indirect expenses were already accounted for. However, additions for undisclosed investment and purchases were allowed to be telescoped with the undisclosed sales.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, as the issues were covered by the APA. Similarly, the revenue's appeal was also dismissed as the issues were covered by the APA, and the revenue was expected to withdraw it.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal as withdrawn, as the issues were covered by the APA. Similarly, the revenue's appeal was also dismissed as the issues were covered by the APA, and the revenue was expected to withdraw it.