ITAT Kolkata Judgments — October 2017

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal due to repeated non-appearance. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that commission income should be assessed under 'Income from Business' and that expenses would have been incurred. However, as the assessee failed to substantiate the expenditure, the income was assessed at 40% of gross receipts for both assessment years.

The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(Appeals). The impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee declared income under the presumptive taxation scheme of Section 44AE, he was not obligated to maintain books of account or explain individual entries like bank deposits. Following precedents, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal found that some of the fixed deposits were made from disclosed sources and were to be deleted. The remaining addition sustained by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that salary earned by an Indian citizen working on a foreign ship and rendering services outside India is exempt from taxation. Therefore, the addition made by the revenue authorities was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3), indicating substantial compliance, and the default was not willful. Following precedents, the Tribunal ruled that penalty should not be imposed for technical or venial breaches or when there is a bona fide belief.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claims of fraudulent books and audit reports, without any supporting evidence, could not be accepted. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' findings that the assessee failed to produce any evidence for his revised contentions.

The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the concurrent findings of the revenue authorities, stating that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof and the books were unverifiable. The claim for depreciation was also rejected as Section 44AF deems it provided.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in not following established principles of taxation. It relied on case law stating that only the surplus or profit should be taxed after considering deductions and applying principles like capital versus revenue.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue deserved to be dismissed as it had a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the same income cannot be taxed in the hands of two assessees, which would amount to double taxation. Since the required information was not provided, the additions were set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of the bonus payment date. If paid before the due date, the addition cannot be made.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of low drawings, finding merit in the assessee's argument that her husband bore her domestic expenses. The Tribunal also deleted the addition for gifts received from NRI sons, agreeing that their genuineness and source of funds were adequately explained.

The Tribunal upheld the addition for unexplained cash credit as the assessee failed to prove creditworthiness. However, it partly allowed appeals related to undisclosed purchases and sales by telescoping certain additions and restricting profit estimations.

The Tribunal confirmed an addition of Rs. 5,00,000 for an unproven loan and Rs. 2,95,000 for loans from friends/relatives without evidence. However, it deleted additions for a cash gift from the father-in-law and investments by allowing telescoping benefits.

The Tribunal agreed that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed actual expenditure. It also noted a potential double disallowance of Securities Transaction Tax. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities qualified for additional depreciation. It also ruled that the disallowance under Section 14A was not sustainable due to the AO's failure to record dissatisfaction, and deleted the addition for ERPC charges based on prior rulings.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. It upheld the decision that interest from a single advance is taxable under 'other sources' and related expenses are allowable under Section 57(iii).

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities qualified for additional depreciation. It also ruled that the disallowance under Section 14A was not sustainable due to the AO's failure to record dissatisfaction, and deleted the addition for ERPC charges based on prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that using the assessee's rejected profit rate of 14.4% was unjustified. It directed the AO to recompute the income from contracting business by applying a net profit rate of 10%, considering the assessee's past profit rates and the fact that Section 44AD was not applicable. Grounds related to partner remuneration and TDS were dismissed as not pressed before the lower appellate authority.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were invalid. It found that the AO initiated reassessment based on a change of opinion without any new material, as all facts were disclosed during the original assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to delayed PF deposits and interest on borrowed funds, finding the issues covered by jurisdictional High Court decisions and lack of substantiation by the AO. The assessee's cross-objections regarding commission and service charges were also dismissed for lack of documentary evidence.

The Tribunal deleted the ad-hoc disallowance of expenses and the addition for undervalued closing stock, agreeing with the assessee's submissions and evidence. However, it upheld the addition of undisclosed net profit due to the non-production of books of account.

The Tribunal held that transport charges received by the assessee were reimbursement of expenses incurred and intrinsically linked to the business, thus eligible for deduction. It also held that the transport subsidy was duly verified and part of the business activity, eligible for deduction under Section 80IC.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3), indicating substantial compliance, and the default was not willful. Following precedents, the Tribunal ruled that penalty should not be imposed for technical or venial breaches or when there is a bona fide belief.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3), indicating substantial compliance, and the default was not willful. Following precedents, the Tribunal ruled that penalty should not be imposed for technical or venial breaches or when there is a bona fide belief.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3), indicating substantial compliance, and the default was not willful. Following precedents, the Tribunal ruled that penalty should not be imposed for technical or venial breaches or when there is a bona fide belief.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3), indicating substantial compliance, and the default was not willful. Following precedents, the Tribunal ruled that penalty should not be imposed for technical or venial breaches or when there is a bona fide belief.

The Tribunal held that commission income should be assessed under 'Income from Business' and that expenses would have been incurred. However, as the assessee failed to substantiate the expenditure, the income was assessed at 40% of gross receipts for both assessment years.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Respondent's counsel did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that merely making a claim not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted when the disallowance is on technical grounds and no inaccurate information was provided.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO were not valid in law. The reasons recorded by the AO were found to be vague and lacking application of mind, failing to establish the escapement of income. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the set-off of speculative gains with speculative losses is allowed. It also confirmed the addition for undisclosed income and upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to verify investments. The disallowance of interest expenses was partly confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the same income cannot be taxed in the hands of two assessees, which would amount to double taxation. Since the required information was not provided, the additions were set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits, noting inconsistent stands taken at different levels. However, it allowed the issue of cash deposits to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of applying the peak credit theory.

The Tribunal held that the set-off of speculative gains with speculative losses is allowed. It also confirmed the addition for undisclosed income and upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to verify investments. The disallowance of interest expenses was partly confirmed.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of low drawings, finding merit in the assessee's argument that her husband bore her domestic expenses. The Tribunal also deleted the addition for gifts received from NRI sons, agreeing that their genuineness and source of funds were adequately explained.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the lower authorities, finding no reason to interfere with the best judgment assessment. The assessee's failure to maintain proper books of account and produce them was noted, and the comparable case used by the AO was not successfully challenged.

The Tribunal held that the CIT was not justified in revising the assessment order under Section 263. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries regarding transfer pricing and that the provision for doubtful debts was correctly adjusted against sundry debtors, aligning with Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the CIT was not justified in revising the assessment order under Section 263. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries regarding transfer pricing and that the provision for doubtful debts was correctly adjusted against sundry debtors, aligning with Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the CIT was not justified in revising the assessment order under Section 263. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries regarding transfer pricing and that the provision for doubtful debts was correctly adjusted against sundry debtors, aligning with Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the disallowances made by the CIT(A) were not justified as there was no written contract for the payments made to truck drivers and the payments for hire charges did not attract Section 194I. The disallowances were deleted.

The Tribunal found that the addition was made due to non-compliance by donors and the assessee's initial acceptance. Given the assessee's plea for another opportunity to produce donors and the claim of coercion, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds. It held that depreciation is allowable on a block of assets even if individual assets are not put to use, and that the CIT(A)'s findings on this were not controverted. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding Section 14A disallowance and the allowability of the pension provision.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of low drawings, finding merit in the assessee's argument that her husband bore her domestic expenses. The Tribunal also deleted the addition for gifts received from NRI sons, agreeing that their genuineness and source of funds were adequately explained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities qualified for additional depreciation. It also ruled that the disallowance under Section 14A was not sustainable due to the AO's failure to record dissatisfaction, and deleted the addition for ERPC charges based on prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities qualified for additional depreciation. It also ruled that the disallowance under Section 14A was not sustainable due to the AO's failure to record dissatisfaction, and deleted the addition for ERPC charges based on prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the claim for speculation profit was not substantiated due to lack of evidence and the broker's non-compliance, upholding its treatment as unexplained cash credit. However, the Tribunal found the disallowance of short-term capital loss to be unjustified, as similar transactions with family members were accepted and evidence of monetary adjustments was provided.