ITAT Kolkata Judgments — February 2017

The Tribunal held that while the purchases could not be entirely disallowed as bogus given the sales tax registration and audited accounts, the cash payment attracted Section 40A(3). Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the amount attracting this section.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's omission to disclose the income in the original return was due to misconception and mistake, not deliberate concealment. Considering the assessee's age and the voluntary disclosure in the revised return, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and found that the assessee had appeared before the CIT-A initially. Due to reasons beyond the assessee's control, they couldn't prosecute the appeal further. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the issues back to the CIT-A for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's submissions regarding withdrawals and advance receipts were not presented before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the AO for verification.

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 Following CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, the appeal was treated as withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal observed the assessee's conduct indicated a lack of serious interest in prosecuting the appeal. Applying the principle of 'vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subvenient', the appeal was treated as unadmitted and dismissed.

The Tribunal, citing the principle that law assists the vigilant, treated the appeal as unadmitted. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting fresh evidence without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine it. The assessee failed to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the depositors.

The Tribunal observed the assessee's consistent non-appearance and lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Citing legal principles regarding vigilance and the ITAT Rules, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which directed the Assessing Officer to verify the facts and pass consequential orders. The CIT(A) allowed the deletion subject to the approval of the Deed of Variation by the Commissioner of Income-tax.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not eligible for deduction under Section 35D as the business had already commenced and the IPO funds were not demonstrably used for extending existing industrial undertakings or setting up new ones.

The Tribunal held that the delay in obtaining and filing the tax audit report was beyond the assessee's control, as it was dependent on the Cooperative Department's appointment of statutory auditors. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to stock shortages, finding them to be normal business losses. For leave encashment, the Tribunal decided to await the Supreme Court's decision. The deletion of additions for written-back doubtful debts was sustained, preventing double taxation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the deferred sales tax, converted into a government loan under a specific policy, was eligible for deduction. This was based on the understanding that such conversion is treated as payment and aligns with CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to provide evidence that the payees have offered the commission income to tax and paid taxes thereon. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) should not be made if the income is offered to tax by the recipient.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance. The payment was considered a commercial expediency for earning income, and the assessee acted as a medium for reimbursement.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to stock shortages, finding them to be normal business losses. For leave encashment, the Tribunal decided to await the Supreme Court's decision. The deletion of additions for written-back doubtful debts was sustained, preventing double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice under Section 274 was defective as it did not specify the grounds for penalty (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars). Following established precedents, the Tribunal found the penalty order invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the building repair expenses were in the nature of revenue expenditure and that the bad debts were allowable as a trading loss incurred in the normal course of business.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) order was passed ex-parte without giving a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. The order also failed to meet the mandatory requirements of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circulars are binding on the Revenue and that the appeal filed by the Revenue was contrary to the policy decision of the Department. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The ITAT held that the assessment framed under section 144 was void ab initio because the return of income was not validly filed. Consequently, the appeal arising from this assessment was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) order was passed ex-parte without giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The order also failed to meet the mandatory requirements of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

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

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circulars are binding on the Revenue. As the appeal was filed contrary to the policy decision of the Department as laid down in the circular, it was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was consequently dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal restored the issue of understated contract receipts to the AO to verify if the amount was offered to tax in the subsequent year, to avoid double taxation. The issue of disallowed expenses was also restored to the AO to give the assessee another opportunity to justify the expenses.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that only investments yielding exempt income should be considered for disallowance under Section 14A. It also confirmed the method of calculating average total assets as directed by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had properly examined the details of share capital and sundry creditors. Due to the assessee's non-appearance and unserved notices, the issue was remanded to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal found merit in the revenue's submission that the assessee did not cooperate. In the interest of justice, the issue was remanded to the AO for adjudication.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's submission of not receiving notices and the interest of justice, decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Other grounds were not adjudicated due to this decision.

The Tribunal held that while the existence of parties might not be proven, the purchases themselves were genuine as they were recorded in the books and led to accepted trading profits. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 for sundry creditors was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the advances were given for business purposes and had become irrecoverable. The assessee was justified in writing off these amounts as a business loss/bad debt.

The Tribunal held that the date of allotment should be considered the date of purchase for computing capital gains, as it confers the right to hold the property. Therefore, the period of holding exceeded 36 months, qualifying for long-term capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the scholarship expenses were for the purpose of business as the beneficiaries joined and served the company after completing their studies. Therefore, the expenditure was allowable.

The Tribunal held that while the discretion to impose penalty under Section 271B exists, the assessee failed to provide any evidence to substantiate their claim of reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal was not satisfied with the explanation regarding software change as a valid reason for a ten-month delay, especially for an old and conscious assessee.

The Tribunal held that the cash payments made by the assessee were covered by the exceptions under Rule 6DD(b) of the IT Rules, as they were deposited directly into the bank account of the bottling plant, which was considered a government establishment. The issue of bank charges was remanded for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that while the existence of parties might not be proven, the purchases themselves were genuine as they were recorded in the books and led to accepted trading profits. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 for sundry creditors was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had paid the entire interest within the financial year, thus not violating Section 43B(e). Regarding the addition under Section 40(a), the Tribunal found that TDS had been paid by the assessee, entitling it to claim the expenditure.

The Tribunal held that while ignorance of law is not an excuse, the penalty imposed was disproportionate given the small amount of FBT payable and the fact that it was the first year of FBT applicability. The Tribunal deleted the penalty.

The Tribunal held that a litigant must not only file an appeal but also prosecute it diligently. Since the assessee failed to prosecute the appeal, it was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can only be imposed if there is actual concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the income tax return. Since the assessee made a complete disclosure in the return and the income was accepted without variation, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was hit by CBDT circular no. 21/2015, which mandates withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 10,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal was not to be pursued further.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in accepting additional evidence without providing the AO an opportunity to examine it, thus violating Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Consequently, the issues were remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice and Rule 46A by not providing the AO an opportunity to examine additional evidence. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.