ITAT Kolkata Judgments — April 2018

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a private limited company, has to incur certain expenses to maintain its status, even if it has exempt income. The disallowance of the entire amount was deemed incorrect, and the matter was to be reconsidered.

The Tribunal held that the CIT exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 263 by not affording the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard on the specific grounds that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The revisional order was quashed.

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) which directed the Assessing Officer to tax the undisclosed amount by applying the net profit rate of the assessee's business.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order was ex parte and the assessee was not given an opportunity to plead their case. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case with identical facts, held that there was no violation of Section 40A(3). The Tribunal noted that the payment was made via account payee cheque to a third party on the instruction of the creditor, and there was no cash payment.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in comparing the average stock value with the sale price without considering the product mix and valuation differences. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned on unutilized loan funds deposited in fixed deposits should be set off against interest expenses and capitalized as work-in-progress, as the assessee had commenced its business activities. The Tribunal also held that TDS under Section 194LA was not applicable for land purchased through sale deeds, not compulsory acquisition.

The Tribunal recalled the ex-parte dismissal order, finding sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance. The appeal was then restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a private limited company, has to incur certain expenses to maintain its status, even if it has exempt income. The disallowance of the entire amount was deemed incorrect, and the matter was to be reconsidered.

The tribunal directed the AO to allow credit for refund adjustment and to re-examine the interest computation under Section 234C. The revenue's appeal regarding the deletion of sales tax subsidy was dismissed, following the assessee's allowed grounds.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) based on the principles of natural justice. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the revisionary order under Section 263 was already quashed by a previous ITAT order, the consequential assessment order and the additions made therein become infructuous and unsustainable. Therefore, the appeal is decided in favour of the assessee.

The tribunal directed the AO to allow credit for refund adjustment and to re-examine the interest computation under Section 234C. The revenue's appeal regarding the deletion of sales tax subsidy was dismissed, following the assessee's allowed grounds.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that staff welfare expenses were reasonable given the business volume and that external vouchers were not always available. For foreign travel, the assessee had provided sufficient details. Regarding loan processing fees, the Tribunal ruled that TDS was not deductible as per Section 194A of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(i) for Demat charges was confirmed. However, for interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii), it was held that since the assessee had sufficient own funds to cover investments, no disallowance of interest was warranted, following jurisdictional High Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that Section 271AAB is not mandatory and is discretionary. Furthermore, the income recorded in 'other documents' found during the search, which was subsequently declared and accepted by the AO, does not qualify as 'undisclosed income' under Section 271AAB.

The tribunal confirmed the addition for travelling expenses as they were not for business purposes. The addition for carriage inward expenses related to the preceding year was allowed as the liability crystallized in the current year. The disallowance on miscellaneous expenses was restricted from 20% to 10%.

The Tribunal held that since the Section 263 order, which formed the basis of the assessment order, was quashed, the assessment order itself could not survive. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee's appeal was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that Section 271AAB is discretionary and not mandatory. Furthermore, the income declared was found in 'other documents' maintained in the normal course, thus not falling under the definition of 'undisclosed income' for penalty purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was ex-parte and the assessee could not plead their case. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.

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 the exact charge against the assessee, i.e., whether it was for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following the precedent of the Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal directed the cancellation of the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was unsustainable because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 of the Act did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following the decision of the Karnataka High Court, the penalty was directed to be cancelled.

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A), directing the AO to recalculate the eligible profit/loss for each unit for the purpose of Section 80IA deduction. The Tribunal found no material to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing the principle of consistency. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had accepted the assessee's claim as short-term capital gain in previous and subsequent assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(i) for Demat charges was confirmed. However, for interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii), it was held that since the assessee had sufficient own funds to cover investments, no disallowance of interest was warranted, following jurisdictional High Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(i) for Demat charges was confirmed. However, for interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii), it was held that since the assessee had sufficient own funds to cover investments, no disallowance of interest was warranted, following jurisdictional High Court precedents.

The Tribunal noted the Supreme Court's interim order allowing assessees to pay tax as if Section 43B(f) was in effect but claim deduction on a provision basis. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the AO to be decided based on the outcome of the main appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal held that failure to furnish the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment to the assessee is a mandatory requirement and a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the reassessment order cannot be upheld.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(i) for Demat charges was confirmed. However, for interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii), it was held that since the assessee had sufficient own funds to cover investments, no disallowance of interest was warranted, following jurisdictional High Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(i) for Demat charges was confirmed. However, for interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii), it was held that since the assessee had sufficient own funds to cover investments, no disallowance of interest was warranted, following jurisdictional High Court precedents.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not receive the notice from the CIT(A) due to a change in address. For the ends of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a decision on merits after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(i) for Demat charges was confirmed. However, for interest expenses under Rule 8D(2)(ii), it was held that since the assessee had sufficient own funds to cover investments, no disallowance of interest was warranted, following jurisdictional High Court precedents.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT's assumption of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified. The AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, especially considering the assessee earned no dividend income.

The Tribunal, considering the interim orders of the Supreme Court in the context of the Exide Industries case, decided to set aside the issue to the AO. The AO is to pass orders based on the final outcome of the main appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) provided sufficient justification for the estimated profit rate. The NABARD report alone was not considered a definitive basis. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeals for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The appeals for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 were dismissed as the issue was covered by a prior ruling in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the appeals for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The appeals for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 were dismissed as the issue was covered by a prior ruling in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal, following various High Court and Supreme Court precedents, held that an appeal must be effectively pursued and not just filed. Since the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal, it was dismissed.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, citing precedents where appeals were dismissed due to the appellant's absence and lack of steps to pursue the case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a fair opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer, as the assessment order was passed with a back date after the assessee's counsel submitted written submissions. Therefore, the matter was remanded for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the appeals for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The appeals for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 were dismissed as the issue was covered by a prior ruling in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in pursuing its case. Following various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO. The AO was directed to decide the issues on merit de novo after providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the appeals for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit. The appeals for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 were dismissed as the issue was covered by a prior ruling in favour of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that Section 194LA is not applicable to the acquisition of agricultural land. Since the acquired land was predominantly agricultural, including homestead land, the assessee was not liable for TDS deduction under this section.

The Tribunal held that Section 194LA is not applicable to the acquisition of agricultural land. Since the acquired land was predominantly agricultural, including homestead land, the assessee was not liable for TDS deduction under this section.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not being prosecuted diligently by the assessee. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that filing an appeal requires active pursuit.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for a remand to verify if TDS was paid in a subsequent year or if the payees had offered the income for taxation. The Tribunal also decided to remand the issue of contractual receipts to the AO for verification of discrepancies.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine for want of prosecution, citing the assessee's lack of interest in pursuing the case and referencing previous judicial precedents.