ITAT Kolkata Judgments — January 2018

The Tribunal held that adding the entire difference in gross contract receipts was unjust. It restricted the addition to 8% of the difference, which is a presumptive rate for contract business.

The Tribunal held that the eligibility for registration and approval should be decided on merits, not on default. The CIT's orders were set aside, and the cases were remanded for fresh consideration after affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard and produce necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the eligibility for registration and approval should be decided on merits, not on default. The CIT's orders were set aside, and the cases were remanded for fresh consideration after affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard and produce necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the eligibility for registration and approval should be decided on merits, not on default. The CIT's orders were set aside, and the cases were remanded for fresh consideration after affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard and produce necessary documents.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the staff welfare fund, following a previous ITAT decision that such contributions were diverted by overriding title. For the carry-forward of losses and dividend income, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the claims, treating the Revenue's ground as partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the staff welfare fund, following a previous ITAT decision that such contributions were diverted by overriding title. For the carry-forward of losses and dividend income, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the claims, treating the Revenue's ground as partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the staff welfare fund, following a previous ITAT decision that such contributions were diverted by overriding title. For the carry-forward of losses and dividend income, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the claims, treating the Revenue's ground as partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the eligibility for registration and approval should be decided on merits, not on default. The CIT's orders were set aside, and the cases were remanded for fresh consideration after affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard and produce necessary documents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided to be convincing and constituting a sufficient cause. It further held that the orders passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act could not be sustained as the conditions for exercising jurisdiction were absent.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided to be convincing and constituting a sufficient cause. It further held that the orders passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act could not be sustained as the conditions for exercising jurisdiction were absent.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. The disallowance was based on a previous year's assessment where the addition was not challenged by the Revenue, making the CIT(A)'s order for that year final.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to commission expenses, bad debts, and the claim for deduction. The appeal was dismissed on these grounds.

The Tribunal held that the sum reflected in the TDS certificate was not the assessee's income, except for the reimbursement of van charges. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted, but the assessee was only entitled to TDS credit for the amount offered to tax.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not served with any notice of hearing. To ensure justice, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the case was remanded for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that a sum of Rs. 11,39,158/-, which was paid in the subsequent year, should not have been included in the gross receipts for the current assessment year. Therefore, the estimation should be based on the receipts declared by the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided to be convincing and constituting a sufficient cause. It further held that the orders passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act could not be sustained as the conditions for exercising jurisdiction were absent.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear and had not informed of any change of address, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Relying on precedents, the appeal was dismissed for non-appearance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that an appeal requires active prosecution and that the assessee's absence signifies non-interest. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were based on a CIT order under Section 263, which had been set aside by a previous ITAT order. Therefore, the assessment proceedings lacked a valid basis and were annulled.