ITAT Kolkata Judgments — August 2018

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular also stated that pending appeals below these limits could be withdrawn or not pressed.

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

The Tribunal held that commission paid to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India is not taxable in India, and therefore, Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs Toshoku Limited.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of least rent payments was not justified as the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in earlier years. The commission payments were also held to be not taxable in India, thus not requiring TDS. A partial disallowance was made for sales promotion expenses due to lack of complete details.

The Tribunal held that commission paid to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India is not taxable in India, and therefore, Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs Toshoku Limited.

The Tribunal held that commission paid to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India is not taxable in India, and therefore, Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs Toshoku Limited.

The Tribunal held that commission paid to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India is not taxable in India, and therefore, Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs Toshoku Limited.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of least rent payments was not justified as the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee in earlier years. The commission payments were also held to be not taxable in India, thus not requiring TDS. A partial disallowance was made for sales promotion expenses due to lack of complete details.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the interest charged on foreign currency loans was reasonable and that the disallowance under Section 14A was limited to the amount offered by the assessee. The addition for delayed PF deposit was also deleted based on High Court precedents.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the interest charged on foreign currency loans was reasonable and that the disallowance under Section 14A was limited to the amount offered by the assessee. The addition for delayed PF deposit was also deleted based on High Court precedents.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the abandoned project expenses were incidental to the assessee's business and thus deductible as a loss under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that no enduring asset was created and the expenditure was a loss incurred in the ordinary course of business.

For AY 2011-12, the appeal was dismissed based on CBDT circular regarding tax effect. For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal held that liquidated damages for delay in contract completion are generally allowable, but remitted the issue to the AO for verification of sample contracts.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the abandoned project expenses were incidental to the assessee's business and thus deductible as a loss under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that no enduring asset was created and the expenditure was a loss incurred in the ordinary course of business.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lenders by providing necessary documents and that the loans were repaid. The AO's action of doubting the lenders' creditworthiness without further inquiry from the lenders' AO was deemed flawed.

For AY 2011-12, the appeal was dismissed based on CBDT circular regarding tax effect. For AY 2010-11, the Tribunal held that liquidated damages for delay in contract completion are generally allowable, but remitted the issue to the AO for verification of sample contracts.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. It ruled that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) was curative and retrospective, and that disallowance would not arise if the payee offered income for tax. The addition under Section 69B was also deleted as the AO relied on unverified information and ignored TDS certificates.

The tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal due to repeated non-appearance. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, citing legal precedents that emphasize the need to actively pursue appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal due to non-appearance. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, citing legal precedents.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the filed written submission. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, which was also upheld by the Supreme Court's dismissal of an SLP, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the tax audit report was obtained before the due date of filing the return and the audited accounts were verified by the Co-operative Societies Department. The assessee's bonafide belief that no return was required due to 80P(2) deduction constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B.

The Tribunal held that Section 115JB was not applicable to banking companies up to Assessment Year 2012-13, following previous co-ordinate bench decisions. The assessee's appeal was dismissed as the issue raised did not arise from the rectification order.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT Circular. The circular also stated that pending appeals below the specified tax limits may be withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal held that Section 115JB was not applicable to banking companies up to Assessment Year 2012-13, following previous co-ordinate bench decisions. The assessee's appeal was dismissed as the issue raised did not arise from the rectification order.

The Tribunal held that Section 115JB was not applicable to banking companies up to Assessment Year 2012-13, following previous co-ordinate bench decisions. The assessee's appeal was dismissed as the issue raised did not arise from the rectification order.

The Tribunal held that provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) override Section 206AA when they are more beneficial to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee was justified in applying the lower DTAA rates.

The Tribunal, following its own prior decision and a Supreme Court ruling, held that club membership fees are purely business expenses. Therefore, the expenditure incurred by the assessee for club membership should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that for Section 194C to apply, a contract between the assessee and the labour sardars for supply of labour must be established. Since no such contract was proven, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not warranted.

The Tribunal found that the AO did not conduct independent inquiries for each share-subscribing company. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh independent inquiries.

The Tribunal held that the foundation for reopening the assessment was the AO's finding that JPB was a bogus entity. However, in subsequent proceedings for another assessee, the AO accepted JPB as a genuine entity. Therefore, the basis for the original addition was removed, and the consequential orders fell.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the decision of the Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case during the reassessment proceedings. Citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matter for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the Revenue were not maintainable due to the revised monetary limits for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular was also applied retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Company, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal remitted both issues back to the AO for verification of facts. For the interest income, the AO needs to verify if it was merely a recovery of actual expenditure. For preliminary expenses, the AO must verify if the assessee had actually claimed the disallowed portion.

The Tribunal held that the foundation for reopening the assessment was the AO's finding that JPB was a bogus entity. However, in subsequent proceedings for another assessee, the AO accepted JPB as a genuine entity. Therefore, the basis for the original addition was removed, and the consequential orders fell.

The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench's order and a Delhi High Court decision, found that the issue required fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal held that if the receipt is income, the corresponding expenditure should be treated as an expense, and only the net receipt taxed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to explain the cash expenses, remanding the issue to the AO. Regarding sundry creditors, the Tribunal found no cessation of liability and directed deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal found that the AO had not conducted the inquiry as directed by the CIT under Section 263. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a detailed inquiry.

The tribunal found that the assessee was not given an opportunity to prove its case. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for independent inquiry into the genuineness and source of share capital.

Following the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The circular mandates dismissal of appeals with a tax effect below a certain limit.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A applies even to shares held as stock-in-trade and remanded the issue for de novo adjudication by the AO. For the F&O loss, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s deletion justified, following a High Court decision on similar facts regarding off-market transactions.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circulars are binding on the Revenue and that the appeal filed was contrary to the policy decision of the Department. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as it was contrary to the CBDT's policy decision regarding monetary limits for appeals. The circular was also held to be applicable retrospectively.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear and pursue the case. The Tribunal cited several precedents supporting this decision.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the revised monetary limits set by the CBDT.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the appeal back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment beyond four years is invalid if there is no allegation of failure to disclose material facts. Since no tangible material came into the AO's possession post-assessment, the reopening was quashed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided evidence, including reconciliation statements and daily summaries of other firms, to support its claims regarding the excess cash. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.