ITAT Kolkata Judgments — December 2016

The Tribunal held that Section 80IA(9), as applied to Section 80IB, affects the allowability of deduction, not its computation. The aggregate deduction should not exceed the profits of the eligible business.

The Tribunal heard both parties and noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. As the department had no objection, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that they should not be penalized for non-appearance due to lack of proper notice. An opportunity to present their case was granted.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the revenue could not confirm if they had filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee was granted liberty to recall the order if the revenue had indeed filed an appeal.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding the land purchase disallowance and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to file a cash flow statement to support its claim that cash payments were covered by bank withdrawals.

The Tribunal held that the AO must record satisfaction that the assessee's claim of incurring no expenditure for exempt income is incorrect before invoking Rule 8D. Since the AO failed to do so and did not point out any specific expenditure attributable to exempt income, the disallowance was not legally tenable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in concluding that the ITO, Ward-32(1) did not have the jurisdiction to pass the assessment order. This was because the jurisdiction had been specifically assigned to the Addl. CIT, Range-32 and there was no record of it being withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the bank's verification of stock was not specific enough to confirm physical verification. The assessee's explanation regarding the date of the stock statement to the bank and the inclusion of receivables was considered valid.

The Tribunal is hearing appeals against the orders passed by the CIT(Exemptions) regarding registration under Section 12AA and approval under Section 80(G)(5)(vi). The specific reasons for denial are not detailed in the provided snippet.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order without giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that commission income and bank interest are not eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB. However, it remanded the case back to the AO to examine if interest from others (on late payment from trade debtors) and miscellaneous income (from scrap sales) were derived from the eligible business.

The Tribunal is hearing appeals against the orders passed by the CIT(Exemptions) regarding registration under Section 12AA and approval under Section 80(G)(5)(vi). The specific reasons for denial are not detailed in the provided snippet.

The Tribunal held that commission income and bank interest are not eligible for deduction under Section 80-IB. However, it remanded the case back to the AO to examine if interest from others (on late payment from trade debtors) and miscellaneous income (from scrap sales) were derived from the eligible business.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition. The CIT(A) had considered evidence like the grandfather's audited accounts, physical verification reports, and affidavits from family members waiving their inheritance rights, which supported the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions related to cash credits as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and payments were made through account payee cheques. The disallowance for repairs and maintenance was partly upheld, and the disallowance for incentives/discounts was confirmed as not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the fees paid for deviation of building plans are not deductible as business expenditure. This is because the expenditure was incurred for a purpose prohibited by law, as per Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission regarding the mismatch between commission income pertaining to AY 2005-06 and TDS claimed for AY 2006-07. It held that the CIT(A) failed to establish the nexus between the commission earned and the TDS claimed.

The Tribunal deleted the addition related to electricity consumption, finding it based on presumptions. It also deleted the addition for unexplained cash credit, holding that a withdrawal by self-cheque does not constitute a credit and the plea was raised before the AO.

The Tribunal held that capital gains arose in the year the collaboration agreement was executed and possession was handed over to the developer, not in the year of sale. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting the capital gains levy as the transfer occurred in an earlier assessment year.

The Tribunal found that the increase in profit estimation for the current year was disproportionately higher compared to the previous two years. Therefore, it directed to maintain consistency with the previous years' profit enhancement.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) ought to have given an opportunity to the assessee to plead the case for condonation of delay or disposed of the application on merit. Since this was not done, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside as its foundation no longer existed.

The Tribunal held that the amount received was reimbursement for expenses incurred for eye camps and not income, except for a service charge of Rs. 99,999/-. Regarding disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for payments to doctors, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for verification if the doctors had offered the income in their returns.

The Tribunal restored the file to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, in the interest of justice and fair play.

The Tribunal held that the reconciliation statement was not additional evidence, thus Rule 46A was not contravened. It also held that club expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, providing a suitable platform for meetings and maintaining business relationships.

The Tribunal held that an appeal requires active prosecution, not just filing. Since the assessee failed to pursue the appeal, it was dismissed.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back for fresh disposal on merit. This was done to provide one more opportunity to the assessee, subject to payment of costs.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the matter afresh as per law.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was revenue in nature, as it was for the repairs of existing plant and machinery and did not bring into existence any new asset or advantage of enduring benefit. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the addition to the assessee's income was based on estimation, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. Following the precedent of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) requires fresh examination to verify if the payees disclosed the income and paid taxes. For the Section 69A addition, the Tribunal found that the issue requires fresh examination to ascertain if the gross bill amount was disclosed and offered for taxation.

The Tribunal held that the mistake of adding brought forward profit was an apparent mistake from the record, rectifiable under Section 154. The lower authorities erred in not allowing the rectification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions related to cash credits as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence and payments were made through account payee cheques. The disallowance for repairs and maintenance was partly upheld, and the disallowance for incentives/discounts was confirmed as not applicable.

The Tribunal held that when receipts are undisclosed, it does not automatically mean corresponding expenses are also undisclosed. Since the assessee maintained regular books of account, there is a presumption that expenses are accounted for, and the assessee failed to rebut this. Therefore, the addition of the entire difference was upheld.

The Tribunal held that capital gains arose in the year the collaboration agreement was executed and possession was handed over to the developer, not in the year of sale. The CIT(A) was justified in deleting the capital gains levy as the transfer occurred in an earlier assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C were invalid due to the absence of a proper satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the assessment order was a nullity.

The Tribunal noted that the CIB report showed a duplicate entry, while the AIR and account statements indicated a single transaction. Based on the clarification from the mutual fund, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal observed the assessee's conduct indicated a lack of serious interest in prosecuting the appeal. Citing legal principles and precedent, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted.

The Tribunal, citing the principle that law assists the vigilant, considered the assessee's consistent non-appearance. The appeal was treated as unadmitted and dismissed due to non-prosecution.

The Tribunal found that the AO had thoroughly examined the Section 10B deduction claim and correctly allowed it to the extent of Rs. 5,12,79,987. The CIT's conclusion that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue was not justified.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's conduct indicated a lack of serious interest in prosecuting the appeal. Applying the principle of vigilance and considering relevant ITAT rules and High Court judgments, the appeal was treated as unadmitted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal despite the assessee's AR being present, citing non-compliance. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's conduct and the principle of vigilance, treated the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide any material or comparable cases to prove that the purchase price was excessive or unreasonable. The onus was on the AO to demonstrate the applicability of Section 40A(2), which was not met.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, finding that the source of funds for investments was sufficiently explained and not disproved by the AO. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the disallowance for transport hire charges, noting that the AO's disallowance was based on an estimate without rejecting the assessee's books of accounts.

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that they could not be penalized for the misplacement of the notice. In the interest of justice, the impugned ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not be penalized for the inaction of their representative. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed it to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the assessee.

The ITAT held that the CIT(Appeals) should have adjudicated the appeal on merit and by passing a speaking order. The tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order to allow the assessee's appellate right.

The Tribunal held that if the transport cost is part of the cost of purchases and ownership transfers at the buyer's premises, TDS provisions do not apply. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable.