ITAT Kolkata Judgments — March 2017

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not justified in cancelling the registration as the allegations were based on unverified complaints and the trust's activities were for charitable purposes. The donations received were utilized for charitable purposes, and the trust was not found to be involved in any wrongdoing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had been non-compliant and non-cooperative throughout the proceedings and appeared not to be seriously interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was treated as unadmitted and dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law, as it was based on a statement recorded during a survey which lacked evidentiary value and did not directly link the assessee. Consequently, the assessment order was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that credit for TDS can be allowed to the assessee if the corresponding proprietor has not claimed or been allowed credit for the same. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification to ensure no double credit is claimed.

The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance, supported by medical certificates and an affidavit. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT erred in initiating revision proceedings under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient inquiries during the assessment. The CIT's order was set aside, restoring the AO's original assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the principle of peak credit cannot be applied without establishing ownership of the funds. Since the AO acknowledged the assessee as an accommodation entry provider, the addition based on peak credit was unsustainable. However, the commission income added by the AO was sustained.

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 Following CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.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 held that the CIT(Appeals) failed to consider the assessee's application for condonation of delay. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh disposal.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's conduct indicated a lack of serious interest in prosecuting the appeal. Applying the principle that law assists the vigilant, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to properly explain the source of cash deposits before the AO and CIT-A. In the interest of justice, the issue was remanded to the AO for fresh consideration and verification.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's grounds of appeal. This was based on consistent previous rulings by the Tribunal and a binding High Court judgment regarding the inclusion of interest income for Section 33AB deduction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without a remand report, especially when additional evidence was filed. The Tribunal found the additional evidence necessary for fair adjudication and decided to remand the issue back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the revenue deserved to be dismissed in terms of the low tax effect limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The circular applies retrospectively to pending appeals and is binding on tax authorities.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive the notices, despite the CIT(A) sending them to the provided address. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT's rejection was based on an inquiry report not shared with the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remitted the applications back for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the Section 154 petition, agreeing with the CIT(A) that a dispute regarding a finding of fact made during the assessment cannot be rectified under Section 154. The assessee should have filed an appeal against the original assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT's rejection was based on an inquiry report not shared with the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remitted the applications back for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the advance to the sister concern was for commercial expediency and business purposes, as evidenced by subsequent profits. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A of the IT Rules by admitting fresh evidence (bank statement) without following the prescribed procedure, such as obtaining a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal held that the shares treated as stock-in-trade in a previous assessment year should continue to be treated as such, and the loss arising from their sale is business loss. It also held that interest income earned from the business of granting loans and advances is business income.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue's counsel had no objection to this request.

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. The circular's revised monetary limits apply retrospectively to pending appeals.

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

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-compliant and non-cooperative attitude, considered the appeal unadmitted and dismissed it for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal found the assessee to be exhibiting a casual and negligent attitude, indicating a lack of serious interest in prosecuting the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was treated as unadmitted and dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's contention regarding lease rental income being business income was not considered by the AO. Therefore, the issues were remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication in light of Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the Section 40A(3) disallowance, finding no exceptional circumstances. However, it deleted the further addition made by the CIT(Appeals) for alleged undisclosed capital, as the assessee's stand of using sale proceeds was not dislodged.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's initial declaration of STCG contradicted the claim of the property being stock-in-trade. However, it agreed that the procedure under Section 50C(2) for referring the issue to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) was not followed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the Rs. 1,16,38,000/- addition, finding that the AO had invoked Section 41(1) incorrectly. The Tribunal also remanded an issue regarding compensation expenses for encroachers back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the facts and issues were identical to those in previous appeals decided in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal respectfully followed the coordinate bench's decision, which had dismissed the department's appeal.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D should only consider investments that have yielded exempt income. The AO's computation based on total average investment was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was defective for not specifying whether the charge was for concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Revenue's SLP against a similar High Court ruling, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that even if the transaction was an accommodation entry, the payment made by cheque for share purchase could not be treated as income in the current year. Any addition should have been made in the year the shares were sold, which had already occurred.

The Tribunal held that the debt written off was allowable as a bad debt under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, as it represented money lent in the ordinary course of business and had been taken into account in computing income. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A, as the assessee had a net positive interest income, meaning no net interest expenditure was incurred to earn tax-free dividend income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was justified in deleting the disallowance. The provided documents, along with the production of sponge iron, were considered sufficient to substantiate the expenditure.

The Tribunal restored the issue of repair expenses to the AO for fresh adjudication to establish the genuineness of the expenses. For other expenses, the Tribunal restricted the disallowances to 50% in the interest of justice. The Revenue's appeal regarding the deletion of an addition for investment in tenanted property was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue. As the tax effect in the present appeal was below the revised monetary limit, the appeal was filed contrary to the departmental policy.

The Tribunal restored the issue of repair expenses to the AO for fresh adjudication to establish the genuineness of the expenses. For other expenses, the Tribunal restricted the disallowances to 50% in the interest of justice. The Revenue's appeal regarding the deletion of an addition for investment in tenanted property was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to the necessity of obtaining approval from higher authorities, a reasonable cause for a public sector undertaking. Therefore, the delay should have been condoned.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on fixed deposits made from business funds, even if temporarily surplus, is incidental to the assessee's business activity and should be treated as business income. Therefore, it is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB(10).

The Tribunal held that an appeal requires active pursuit and not just filing. Since the assessee failed to appear or pursue the appeal, it was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal decided to proceed ex-parte as the Revenue did not appear. The CIT(A) had admitted fresh evidence, which was a key issue raised by the Revenue. The judgment details the specific subscribers who did not respond to the AO's notices.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal and the Revenue had no objection. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal held that the tax treatment of the forfeited amount in the hands of the issuing company is irrelevant to the assessee's claim of loss. The Tribunal found that the transaction was duly recorded and transferred to the assessee, making the disallowance baseless.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not being prosecuted by the assessee. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance for machine hire charges requires fresh examination by the AO in light of case laws regarding the retrospective nature of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia). The issue of unexplained expenditure was also remitted to the AO for examination of additional evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that dividend income from a foreign company is not exempt and therefore, investments in such companies do not attract Section 14A. It was also held that no disallowance can be made if no tax-free income was earned during the relevant year.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition as the assessee's explanation that payments were made to truck operators on a per-trip basis without a contract was not controverted by the AO. Therefore, Section 194C was not applicable.

The Tribunal directed the AO to follow the Supreme Court's decision on Section 43B(f) for leave encashment deduction, treating the ground as allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s disallowance of 1% of exempt income, dismissing both assessee and revenue grounds. The Tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s order to exclude excise duty exemption from book profit calculation under Section 115JB.