Loading ITAT cases…
3,441 tribunal orders from the Kolkata bench in 2018.
Showing 40 of 3,441 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the write-back of bad debts was an actual bad debt incurred and not a mere provision, thus allowing its reduction from net profit for book profit computation. Regarding capital losses on shares, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the computation of losses after admitting supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowances. The Revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the transactions were not genuine, and reliance on investigation wing statements without corroboration was insufficient.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the crucial date of conversion of shares from stock-in-trade to investments. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for factual verification and fresh computation of the proportionate interest disallowance.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed cryptic orders without dealing with basic facts and without a detailed adjudication. Therefore, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes to enable the CIT(A) to re-decide the matters on merits.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide valid reasons for rejecting the assessee's explanation regarding discrepancies in creditors and lacked tangible evidence to prove the amounts were bogus. Regarding Section 40A(3), the Tribunal found that cash transactions were common in the assessee's business in rural areas and that the assessee's books were audited and not rejected.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no merit in the Revenue's contention. It noted that the assessee consistently used this method of warranty provision, supported by accounting standards and judicial precedent, which had been accepted in prior years.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide valid reasons for rejecting the assessee's explanation regarding discrepancies in creditors and lacked tangible evidence to prove the amounts were bogus. Regarding Section 40A(3), the Tribunal found that cash transactions were common in the assessee's business in rural areas and that the assessee's books were audited and not rejected.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the assessee. The ex parte order was vitiated due to violation of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked detailed adjudication and did not discuss the case facts. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order without deciding the issue on merits. Therefore, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on loose sheets without corroborative evidence are not sustainable. It also found that the disallowance of long-term capital loss was unjustified as the transactions were part of internal restructuring and the sale price was as agreed between parties.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide valid reasons for rejecting the assessee's explanation regarding discrepancies in creditors and lacked tangible evidence to prove the amounts were bogus. Regarding Section 40A(3), the Tribunal found that cash transactions were common in the assessee's business in rural areas and that the assessee's books were audited and not rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order without adjudicating the issue on merits. Both parties agreed to set aside the matter for de novo adjudication by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that provisions for estimated expenses for a completed project are allowable, especially when the payee is not ascertainable, negating the need for TDS. The disallowance related to raw material purchases was also upheld.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not discuss the basic facts or provide a detailed adjudication as required. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure tax is assessed on the right person and income, considering the new information.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals regarding the disallowance of export commission. The assessee's cross-objection regarding capital gains was partly allowed by estimating the cost of acquisition.
The Tribunal held that Section 40A(3) is not attracted when the genuineness of the payment is not disputed, following jurisdictional High Court precedents. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was therefore incorrect.
The tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed cryptic orders without dealing with basic facts and without a detailed adjudication. Therefore, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes to enable the CIT(A) to re-decide the matters on merits.
The Tribunal held that provisions for estimated expenses for a completed project are allowable, especially when the payee is not ascertainable, negating the need for TDS. The disallowance related to raw material purchases was also upheld.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide valid reasons for rejecting the assessee's explanation regarding discrepancies in creditors and lacked tangible evidence to prove the amounts were bogus. Regarding Section 40A(3), the Tribunal found that cash transactions were common in the assessee's business in rural areas and that the assessee's books were audited and not rejected.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowances. The Revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the transactions were not genuine, and reliance on investigation wing statements without corroboration was insufficient.
The Tribunal held that Section 40A(3) is not attracted when the genuineness of the payment is not disputed, following jurisdictional High Court precedents. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was therefore incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not serious in prosecuting the appeal and that an appeal requires effective pursuit, not just filing. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide valid reasons for rejecting the assessee's explanation regarding discrepancies in creditors and lacked tangible evidence to prove the amounts were bogus. Regarding Section 40A(3), the Tribunal found that cash transactions were common in the assessee's business in rural areas and that the assessee's books were audited and not rejected.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowances. The Revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the transactions were not genuine, and reliance on investigation wing statements without corroboration was insufficient.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not serious in prosecuting the appeal and that an appeal requires effective pursuit, not just filing. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals regarding the disallowance of export commission. The assessee's cross-objection regarding capital gains was partly allowed by estimating the cost of acquisition.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully proved the gift of capital from his father and that the cash deposits were trading receipts from his business. The addition for sundry creditors was also deleted as the amount was repaid in the succeeding year.
The Tribunal found that accepting documents for the first time before the CIT(A) without awaiting a remand report violated Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that accepting documents for the first time before the CIT(A) without awaiting a remand report violated Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal could not adjudicate the appeal due to the absence of the assessee and the lack of assistance. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal as they failed to appear and provide reasons for absence. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits even without the assessee's presence. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that accepting documents for the first time before the CIT(A) without awaiting a remand report violated Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹3,17,00,000/- for share capital raised by the appellant as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act was not justified and directed its deletion. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's remand report, filed during the lower appellate proceedings, had found the impugned share capital/premium to be legally in order. The Tribunal perused this remand report and concluded that the Revenue could not be considered an aggrieved party when the CIT(A) had deleted the addition based on the Assessing Officer's favorable remand report. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in Smt. B. Dayalakshmi vs. ACIT (2018) 90 taxmann.com 486 (Mad), which held that the Revenue is not entitled to maintain an appeal in identical facts and circumstances. Therefore, the Revenue's sole substantive grievance was declined. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was indeed filed twice and that the first appeal had already been disposed of. Therefore, the current appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that blending of tea and coffee amounts to manufacture/production and that weighing machines, computers, and electrical appliances are eligible for investment allowance. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the disallowances.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal without granting the assessee an effective hearing, which violates principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.