ITAT Kolkata Judgments — November 2017

The Tribunal restored the issue of share trading loss to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The enhancement made by the CIT(A) without notice was held to be bad in law and was quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the nature of the receipt needs to be tested on the lines indicated in paragraph 34 of the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. The Tribunal also observed that if the receipt is held to be income, then the corresponding money spent by the assessee from the TSS would have to be regarded as an expense, and only the net receipt could be brought to tax. Since these aspects were not examined by the revenue authorities, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh consideration on whether the receipt in question should be regarded as income of the assessee. The AO was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. For AY 2010-11, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also set aside for de novo consideration by the AO in light of the fresh assessment. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its burden of proof by providing evidence of the transaction and that the Assessing Officer's disallowance was arbitrary and unjustified. The Tribunal also noted a favorable decision for the same expenditure in the subsequent assessment year, which the revenue had accepted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3), it indicated substantial compliance. Relying on Supreme Court and ITAT judgments, the Tribunal found no willful defiance of law, thus reversing the penalty.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3), it indicated substantial compliance. Relying on Supreme Court and ITAT judgments, the Tribunal found no willful defiance of law, thus reversing the penalty.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was ultimately framed under Section 143(3), substantial compliance was made, and the default was not willful. Following judicial precedents, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was ultimately framed under Section 143(3), substantial compliance was made, and the default was not willful. Following judicial precedents, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was ultimately framed under Section 143(3), substantial compliance was made, and the default was not willful. Following judicial precedents, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was ultimately framed under Section 143(3), substantial compliance was made, and the default was not willful. Following judicial precedents, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was ultimately framed under Section 143(3), substantial compliance was made, and the default was not willful. Following judicial precedents, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was ultimately framed under Section 143(3), substantial compliance was made, and the default was not willful. Following judicial precedents, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the technical defect in the appeal signing, considering the practical difficulties and past precedents. The assessee was granted an opportunity to rectify the defect and have the appeal heard on its merits.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the CIT(Exemption) was not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemption)'s sole reason for rejection was the non-commencement of charitable activities, despite being satisfied with the charitable nature of the assessee's objects. The Tribunal referred to the Allahabad High Court's decision in CIT-II vs. R.S. Bajaj Society, which followed the preponderance of judicial opinion from various High Courts. This judicial consensus held that at the time of registration under Section 12AA, the Commissioner is not required to look into the activities if they have not yet commenced or are in the process of initiation. The genuineness of the objects is to be tested at this stage. The Tribunal distinguished the Kerala High Court's decision in Self Employers Service Society, finding its facts to be distinguishable. Consequently, the Tribunal directed that registration under Section 12AA be granted. As the rejection of Section 80G approval was based on the lack of Section 12AA registration, the Tribunal also directed that approval under Section 80G be granted.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was framed under section 143(3), it indicated substantial compliance, and the default was not willful. Following the Supreme Court's judgment in Hindustan Steel Ltd., the Tribunal ruled that penalties should not be imposed for technical breaches or bona fide beliefs.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was framed under section 143(3), it indicated substantial compliance, and the default was not willful. Following the Supreme Court's judgment in Hindustan Steel Ltd., the Tribunal ruled that penalties should not be imposed for technical breaches or bona fide beliefs.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was framed under section 143(3), it indicated substantial compliance, and the default was not willful. Following the Supreme Court's judgment in Hindustan Steel Ltd., the Tribunal ruled that penalties should not be imposed for technical breaches or bona fide beliefs.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was framed under section 143(3), it indicated substantial compliance, and the default was not willful. Following the Supreme Court's judgment in Hindustan Steel Ltd., the Tribunal ruled that penalties should not be imposed for technical breaches or bona fide beliefs.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was framed under section 143(3), it indicated substantial compliance, and the default was not willful. Following the Supreme Court's judgment in Hindustan Steel Ltd., the Tribunal ruled that penalties should not be imposed for technical breaches or bona fide beliefs.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was ultimately framed under Section 143(3), substantial compliance was made, and the default was not willful. Following judicial precedents, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters to his file. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding a reasonable cause for it. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment for AY 2002-03 was bad in law as there was no failure on the assessee's part to disclose material facts and the reopening was based on a change of opinion. For AY 2006-07, issues related to Section 35E were set aside to the AO, and a ground related to development expenditure was also set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issue of share trading loss to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The enhancement made by the CIT(A) without notice was held to be bad in law and was quashed.

The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when there is no variation between the returned income and the assessed income, and the revised return was accepted. The penalty order was also found to be bad in law due to a lack of specific charge.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was not justified as there was no physical verification by the bank, and the assessee's explanation was supported by various High Court decisions and attestation from the District Controller, Food & Supplies Department.

The Tribunal held that Rule 8D is not applicable for assessment years prior to 2008-09. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 14A by applying Rule 8D for AY 2005-06 was bad in law.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the bonus payments. The bonus payments were supported by bonus sheets, registers, and TDS deductions, and were paid to the same employees who received salaries.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order passed against a non-existent company (PGIL) is fundamentally infirm and void ab initio. The order of the CIT(A) quashing the penalty was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its burden of proof by providing evidence of the transaction and that the Assessing Officer's disallowance was arbitrary and unjustified. The Tribunal also noted a favorable decision for the same expenditure in the subsequent assessment year, which the revenue had accepted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) contravened Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules by admitting additional evidence without allowing the AO an opportunity to examine it. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the excess payment for shares was not necessarily a loan and directed verification. It also allowed the deduction for employees' PF contribution paid before the return filing due date, following the Calcutta High Court's precedent.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was bad in law as it failed to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which proceedings were initiated. Following the Karnataka High Court's decision, the Tribunal set aside the penalty.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte without hearing the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the interest income from nationalized banks was income from business and eligible for deduction under Section 80P, following previous decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and the ITAT in the assessee's own cases.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not passed a speaking order and did not adjudicate on the issues raised by the assessee. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory even in reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148. Failure to issue this notice renders the assessment order void ab initio.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that for the purpose of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii), only investments yielding tax-free income during the previous year should be considered for calculating the average value of investments.

The Tribunal condoned the technical defect in the appeal signing, considering the practical difficulties and past precedents. The assessee was granted an opportunity to rectify the defect and have the appeal heard on its merits.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before them. The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without proper reasoning and directed the matter to be decided on merits by the CIT(A) after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to dispose of the appeal with reasoning as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order without deciding on merits and should have given another opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was framed under section 143(3), it indicated substantial compliance, and the default was not willful. Following the Supreme Court's judgment in Hindustan Steel Ltd., the Tribunal ruled that penalties should not be imposed for technical breaches or bona fide beliefs.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3), it indicated substantial compliance. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal found that the default was not willful and therefore, the penalty was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was framed under Section 143(3), indicating substantial compliance. Relying on judicial precedents, it was decided that penalty should not be imposed unless the breach was deliberate or contumacious.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed under Section 143(3), it indicated substantial compliance. Relying on Supreme Court and ITAT judgments, the Tribunal found no willful defiance of law, thus reversing the penalty.

The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) had given opportunities, in the interest of justice, another opportunity should have been provided. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the wholesale licensee acted as an agent of the State Government for the supply of country liquor. Therefore, payments made to this licensee were considered an exception under Rule 6DD(k) of the Income Tax Rules.

The Tribunal held that the excess payment for shares was not necessarily a loan and directed verification. It also allowed the deduction for employees' PF contribution paid before the return filing due date, following the Calcutta High Court's precedent.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without providing an opportunity for the assessee to represent its case. The CIT(A) also failed to consider the details of shareholders and their income tax particulars furnished by the assessee.