ITAT Kolkata Judgments — December 2017

The Tribunal held that the appellate authorities have the power to entertain new claims and that the tax liability must be determined based on statutory provisions, not admissions. Both medical reimbursement and uniform expenses were directed to be excluded from chargeable expenditure for FBT.

The Tribunal held that denying approval under Section 80G when registration under Section 12A is already granted is legally incorrect. The CIT (Exemptions) was directed to grant the approval under Section 80G.

The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on assets whose cost has already been treated as application of income for charitable purposes, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The Tribunal also allowed the carry forward of excess application of income from earlier years to be adjusted against subsequent years' income.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's lack of interest in prosecuting the case, dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, following established precedents.

The Tribunal held that the deduction for employees' contribution to PF is allowable if paid on or before the due date of filing the return of income, following the ratio of Supreme Court and High Court judgments. The order of the CIT(A) allowing the deduction was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the comparable companies Akshay Software Technologies Ltd. and Thinksoft Global Services Ltd. should be included for determining the ALP. Consequently, no adjustment to the ALP was required.

The Tribunal noted that the copies of ledgers filed by the assessee were not produced before the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after verification of these documents.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s deletion of the disallowance, finding that the assessee had established no contractual relationship with the transporters. The evidence supported the assessee's claim that transport charges were paid by sellers and reimbursed as part of the purchase price.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in the development of an infrastructure facility and not merely a works contractor. The activities undertaken by the assessee, such as design, procurement of materials, and bearing risks, indicated a developer role. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IA.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was wrongly imposed, especially since the assessment order was passed under Section 143(3), implying subsequent compliance was considered satisfactory. The Tribunal cited a co-ordinate bench decision where earlier defaults were ignored due to final compliance.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly imposed, especially since the assessment order was passed under Section 143(3), implying subsequent compliance was accepted. Relying on a co-ordinate bench decision, the Tribunal found no wilful default.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly imposed as the assessment order was passed under section 143(3), implying subsequent compliance was accepted. The Tribunal relied on a co-ordinate bench decision stating that earlier defaults are ignored if subsequent compliance is good.

The Tribunal held that the opening capital for AY 2003-04 was accumulated past income and a gift, not income of the current year, and thus the addition was unwarranted. For AY 2009-10, Section 40A(3) is not applicable to agricultural expenditure, and the disallowance would only enhance exempt agricultural income.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated illegally as they were beyond four years and based on a 'change of opinion' without any new material. The assessee had made a full and true disclosure of material facts during the original assessment.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication regarding the excess TDS payment, as the justification report was now available. For the delayed TDS deposit, the Tribunal held that the assessee was discharged from the obligation due to impossibility of performance caused by the bank strike.

The tribunal held that the AO made a double addition by taxing the commission income and then adding the peak cash balance. The CIT-A's deletion of the peak cash balance addition was upheld.

The Tribunal restored the issue of loan written off to the CIT(A) for reconsideration, allowing the assessee's cross-objection partly. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the diversion of interest-bearing funds for interest-free advances.

The Tribunal held that the interest paid on capital contributed by partners and borrowed funds, which were used to advance loans for earning interest income, was eligible for deduction. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the interest expenditure.

The Tribunal remanded the depreciation issue to the AO for verification of composite payment and bifurcation of land and building costs. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was also remanded to the AO to consider the second proviso to the section and relevant High Court decisions.

The Tribunal noted that for subsequent assessment years, the AO had accepted the returns and even granted refunds. Following the principle of consistency, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that for subsequent assessment years, the AO had accepted the returns and even granted refunds. Following the principle of consistency, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the AO accepted the returns and granted refunds in subsequent assessment years. Following the principle of consistency, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the assessee's own case, which allowed depreciation to be set off against interest income. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the claim of depreciation to be set off against interest income.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the AO. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present evidence.

The Tribunal held that the income relatable to the Trust should be assessed in the hands of the beneficiaries, following its own previous orders and the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta which admitted the Revenue's appeal on a question of law but did not lead to a contrary decision.

The Tribunal held that technology upgradation expenses and software expenses incurred by the assessee were revenue in nature. This was based on the rapid changes in technology, the need for frequent replacements, and the lack of enduring benefit to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not properly conduct the proceedings by failing to inquire into the identities of beneficiaries, and therefore, treating the assessee as having failed to provide a proper explanation was improper. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that higher depreciation on motor cars used for running on hire is allowable, and that employee PF contributions deposited before the due date of filing the return of income are deductible. The CIT-A's order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the drafts shown in the balance sheet were recorded in the books of account and the assessee provided a satisfactory explanation for not encashing them timely due to partner disputes. Therefore, the addition under Section 69 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not admit any additional evidence in contravention of Rule 46A. The relief granted was based on existing records or information already available in the tax audit report.

The Tribunal held that certain comparable companies, Akshay Software Technologies Ltd. and Thinksoft Global Services Ltd., should be included in the benchmarking analysis. Consequently, no adjustment to the ALP was required.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Rule 8D should consider only investments that yielded dividend income during the year and exclude strategic investments in subsidiary companies. The assessee's Cross Objection was also allowed on this basis.

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the view favorable to the assessee, the penalty was directed to be cancelled.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication regarding the excess TDS payment, as the justification report was now available. For the delayed TDS deposit, the Tribunal held that the assessee was discharged from the obligation due to impossibility of performance caused by the bank strike.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly imposed, especially since the assessment order was passed under Section 143(3), implying subsequent compliance was accepted. Relying on a co-ordinate bench decision, the Tribunal found no wilful default.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly imposed, especially since the assessment order was passed under Section 143(3), implying subsequent compliance was accepted. Relying on a co-ordinate bench decision, the Tribunal found no wilful default.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly imposed, especially since the assessment order was passed under Section 143(3), implying subsequent compliance was accepted. Relying on a co-ordinate bench decision, the Tribunal found no wilful default.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly imposed, especially since the assessment order was passed under Section 143(3), implying subsequent compliance was accepted. Relying on a co-ordinate bench decision, the Tribunal found no wilful default.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly imposed, especially since the assessment order was passed under Section 143(3), implying subsequent compliance was accepted. Relying on a co-ordinate bench decision, the Tribunal found no wilful default.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly imposed, especially since the assessment order was passed under Section 143(3), implying subsequent compliance was accepted. Relying on a co-ordinate bench decision, the Tribunal found no wilful default.

The Tribunal noted that the AO accepted the returns and granted refunds in subsequent assessment years. Following the principle of consistency, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the AO accepted the returns and granted refunds in subsequent assessment years. Following the principle of consistency, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the AO accepted the returns and granted refunds in subsequent assessment years. Following the principle of consistency, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the AO accepted the returns and granted refunds in subsequent assessment years. Following the principle of consistency, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the AO accepted the returns and granted refunds in subsequent assessment years. Following the principle of consistency, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the interest paid on capital contributed by partners and borrowed funds, which were used to advance loans for earning interest income, was eligible for deduction. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the interest expenditure.

The Tribunal held that the opening capital for AY 2003-04 was accumulated past income and a gift, not income of the current year, and thus the addition was unwarranted. For AY 2009-10, Section 40A(3) is not applicable to agricultural expenditure, and the disallowance would only enhance exempt agricultural income.

The Tribunal noted that for subsequent assessment years, the AO had accepted the returns and even granted refunds. Following the principle of consistency, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that for subsequent assessment years, the AO had accepted the returns and even granted refunds. Following the principle of consistency, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly imposed as the assessment order was passed under section 143(3), implying subsequent compliance was accepted. The Tribunal relied on a co-ordinate bench decision stating that earlier defaults are ignored if subsequent compliance is good.