ITAT Kolkata Judgments — April 2018

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to dispose of the appeal in writing with proper reasoning as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) should have provided a proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was defective as it did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following the precedent of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal decided to cancel the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption)'s jurisdiction at the stage of registration is limited to verifying the genuineness of the trust and its activities, not the application of funds. The CIT ought to have examined the genuineness of the trust and its activities and objectives.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption)'s jurisdiction at the stage of registration is limited to verifying the genuineness of the trust and its activities, not the application of funds. The CIT ought to have examined the genuineness of the trust and its activities and objectives.

The Tribunal found that the AO did not consider the assessee's submissions during assessment and the remand proceedings. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the AO, who was instructed to investigate further.

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 particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, following the decision of the Karnataka High Court.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption)'s jurisdiction at the registration stage is limited to verifying the genuineness of the trust and its activities, not the modus of fund application or potential violations of Section 13. Such issues are for the assessment stage.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notices issued for penalty were defective as they did not specify whether the charge was for concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following the decision of the Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal held that the penalty could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption)'s jurisdiction for registration under Section 12AA is limited to verifying the genuineness of the trust and its activities, not the application of funds or violation of Section 13. The CIT(Exemption) should have examined whether the activities were charitable in nature.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's belief about non-appealability to be bona fide due to incorrect advice. It was held that the Principal CIT's order under Section 263 was bad in law as the original assessment was unabated and no incriminating material was found during the search to justify revision.

The tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the exempt dividend income of Rs. 5,64,333/-.

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 particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court, which was upheld by the Supreme Court.

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 particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, following the decision of the Karnataka High Court.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notices issued for penalty were defective as they did not specify whether the charge was for concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following the decision of the Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal held that the penalty could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption)'s jurisdiction at the registration stage is limited to verifying the genuineness of the trust and its activities, not the modus of fund application or potential violations of Section 13. Such issues are for the assessment stage.

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 particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, following the decision of the Karnataka High Court.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's belief about non-appealability to be bona fide due to incorrect advice. It was held that the Principal CIT's order under Section 263 was bad in law as the original assessment was unabated and no incriminating material was found during the search to justify revision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's belief about non-appealability to be bona fide due to incorrect advice. It was held that the Principal CIT's order under Section 263 was bad in law as the original assessment was unabated and no incriminating material was found during the search to justify revision.

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 particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, following the decision of the Karnataka High Court.

The Tribunal found that the AO did not consider the assessee's submissions during assessment and the remand proceedings. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its powers by directing the AO to verify issues, which amounts to setting aside the assessment. However, it allowed depreciation on intangible assets like afforestation charges for mining leases, considering them as business rights.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 10B. This was based on the fact that the revenue itself had granted similar deductions in earlier assessment years, and the Assessing Officer's own re-assessment orders for some of those years confirmed the assessee's manufacturing activities.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure the assessee gets an adequate opportunity of being heard, thereby upholding the principle of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that LIFO is a recognized method of accounting and cannot be disallowed solely based on AS-2. The issue of making charges was remanded to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that LIFO is a recognized method of accounting and cannot be disallowed solely based on AS-2. The issue of making charges was remanded to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its powers by directing the AO to verify issues, which amounts to setting aside the assessment. However, it allowed depreciation on intangible assets like afforestation charges for mining leases, considering them as business rights.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded its powers by directing the AO to verify issues, which amounts to setting aside the assessment. However, it allowed depreciation on intangible assets like afforestation charges for mining leases, considering them as business rights.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had requested to withdraw the appeal and the revenue had no objection. Therefore, the tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as not pressed.

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

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

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify whether the offense was for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify whether the charge was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the decision of the Karnataka High Court, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.

The Tribunal found the 30% ad-hoc disallowance to be excessive. While acknowledging the assessee's lack of cooperation and the need for estimation, it reduced the disallowance to 10% of the expenditure, deeming it to meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the addition based on peak credit in bank accounts was not justified for the assessee's business model. It also noted that for certain assessment years, the additions were made under Section 153A without any incriminating material found during search, making the assessment bad in law.

The Tribunal recalled the ex parte order and allowed the miscellaneous applications. The main appeals were then adjudicated, and the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was cancelled due to a defective show cause notice.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order and the assessee had a sufficient cause for not appearing. Therefore, the assessment was set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the grounds of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that Section 40A(3) is not applicable as the cash payments were reimbursements of expenses incurred by employees acting as agents, and each individual expense did not exceed Rs. 20,000. The disallowance of other expenses was upheld due to lack of supporting evidence for self-made vouchers.

The Tribunal held that the addition for sundry creditors was not sustainable as they were explained credit purchases. It also deleted the addition under Section 40A(3) as the profit from undisclosed purchases was already brought to tax. Other additions were upheld due to lack of specific arguments from the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to verify if the assessee maintained regular books of account and to re-examine the penalty amounts for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10, considering the maximum penalty limit. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to verify if the assessee maintained regular books of account and to re-examine the penalty amounts for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10, considering the maximum penalty limit. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to verify if the assessee maintained regular books of account and to re-examine the penalty amounts for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10, considering the maximum penalty limit. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the addition for sundry creditors was not sustainable as the credit purchases were explained and recorded. It also deleted the addition under Section 40A(3) as the profit from such undisclosed purchases was already brought to tax.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of derivative loss to the AO for fresh adjudication, as it involved a mixed question of fact and law. For the unsecured loans, the Tribunal also remanded the issue to the AO to provide the assessee with another opportunity to produce the loan creditors.

The Tribunal upheld the addition for the sundry creditors difference and the unsecured loans as unexplained cash credits due to lack of sufficient evidence. However, the addition for alleged suppression of sales was deleted as the AO's presumption was without basis. The disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) were remitted to the AO for verification based on the assessee's submissions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the addition based on peak credit in bank accounts was not justified for the assessee's business model. It also noted that for certain assessment years, the additions were made under Section 153A without any incriminating material found during search, making the assessment bad in law.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest under Rule 8D(2)(ii) could be made as the assessee had sufficient own funds for investments. For disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), only dividend-bearing investments should be considered, excluding those in foreign companies.

The Tribunal held that the rental income and rent paid should be assessed under 'income from other sources' and allowed deduction for rent paid. It also allowed additions for commission income and bank interest as independent activities.

The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) cannot be invoked merely because accounts are not reconciled or for a discrepancy in sundry creditors. There must be evidence of remission or cessation of liability, which was absent in this case.

The Tribunal found that the commission payment to the son was not justified as the son, despite his MBA, was not shown to have rendered any specific services to secure orders for the assessee's business. The payment was considered excessive and not at arm's length.