ITAT Kolkata Judgments — November 2017

The Tribunal held that the assessees were not interested in prosecuting their appeals as they failed to appear on the date of hearing and did not file any adjournment petitions. Therefore, the appeals were liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the assessees were not interested in prosecuting their appeals as they failed to appear on the date of hearing and did not file any adjournment petitions. Therefore, the appeals were liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal acknowledged a typographical error in the first page of its order. It was confirmed that the order was actually pronounced on 27-05-2016, and this date has been corrected.

The Tribunal found that while no supporting evidence was submitted for the expenses, the AO's disallowance of 30% was on the higher side. The CIT(A)'s reduced disallowance resulting in a net profit of 1.97% was considered fair.

The Tribunal held that the assessee satisfied all three conditions stipulated in Section 271AAA(2) for immunity from penalty. The inclusion of income in a revised return, even after the original, was considered compliant.

The Tribunal held that the assessees were not interested in prosecuting their appeals as they failed to appear on the date of hearing and did not file any adjournment petitions. Therefore, the appeals were liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation at 25% on the expenditure incurred for acquiring the right to display advertisements, treating it as an intangible asset. The Tribunal also remanded the issue of disallowance under Section 14A for recomputation.

The Tribunal held that the advances written off were incidental to the assessee's business and the write-off was a result of commercial expediency. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided documentary evidence and that similar claims had been allowed in previous years.

The Tribunal held that the advances written off were incidental to the assessee's business and the write-off was a result of commercial expediency. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided documentary evidence and that similar claims had been allowed in previous years.