ITAT Kolkata Judgments — October 2018

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) within one month.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and the appeal was not disposed of on merits. The Tribunal set aside the order to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the grounds of natural justice, directing the assessee to appear within one month.

The Tribunal held that the additions were based on general reports and circumstantial evidence, not specific material controverting the assessee's evidence. The Tribunal followed its consistent view that decisions must be based on evidence, not generalizations or suspicions.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to ensure natural justice and provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not justified as the genuineness of the expenditure was not disputed and business expediency prevented adherence to the prescribed payment methods. For the Section 40(a)(ia) issue, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication in light of the retrospective amendment to the second proviso.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity for inquiry by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation on the cost of the licensed property incurred by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that no addition can be made under Section 68 when the assessee has discharged its burden of proof by providing details of share sales, including the purchasers being income tax assesses who paid through account payee cheques. The AO failed to bring contrary evidence to disprove the sale.

The Tribunal held that the additions were based on general reports and circumstantial evidence, not specific material controverting the assessee's evidence. The Tribunal followed its consistent view that decisions must be based on evidence, not generalizations or suspicions.

The Tribunal held that additions based on general reports, human probabilities, suspicion, and conjectures without specific evidence against the assessee are not sustainable. The overwhelming evidence filed by the assessee, supporting the genuineness of the transactions, remained unchallenged.

The ITAT restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) to ensure principles of natural justice are followed.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, finding that the AO failed to provide evidence of price rigging or collusion. The Tribunal emphasized that transactions through recognized stock exchanges with STT paid are generally valid.

The Tribunal held that the additions were based on general reports and circumstantial evidence, not specific material controverting the assessee's evidence. The Tribunal followed its consistent view that decisions must be based on evidence, not generalizations or suspicions.

The Tribunal noted that similar issues for earlier assessment years were decided by the Tribunal itself. Following the precedent, the Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, directing computation of disallowance as per earlier directions.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on the grounds related to scientific research expenditure and outstanding sales tax payments. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the AO had not conducted the inquiries as directed by the CIT. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO to conduct the necessary inquiries and complete the assessment afresh.

The Tribunal noted that the revenue's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. In light of this, the Tribunal decided to remand the assessee's appeal back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the additions were based on general reports and circumstantial evidence, not specific material controverting the assessee's evidence. The Tribunal followed its consistent view that decisions must be based on evidence, not generalizations or suspicions.

The tribunal's previous order, which dismissed the assessee's appeal, contained a typographical error. The corrected order now states that the assessee's appeal is allowed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for non-appearance before the CIT(Appeals) as notices were not received. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals) order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to re-examine the assessee's claim of passing on the entire commission after verifying the letter from Reliance Telecom Limited and its annexures.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention that the assessee's submission about the source of funds from directors was made for the first time. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal followed a previous decision with similar facts, holding that the AO was not justified in rejecting the claim based on surrounding circumstances without legal evidence. The Tribunal deleted the additions made under sections 68 and 69C.

The Tribunal followed a previous decision with similar facts, holding that the AO was not justified in rejecting the claim based on surrounding circumstances without legal evidence. The Tribunal deleted the additions made under sections 68 and 69C.

The Tribunal followed a previous decision with similar facts, holding that the AO was not justified in rejecting the claim based on surrounding circumstances without legal evidence. The Tribunal deleted the additions made under sections 68 and 69C.

The Tribunal followed a previous decision with similar facts, holding that the AO was not justified in rejecting the claim based on surrounding circumstances without legal evidence. The Tribunal deleted the additions made under sections 68 and 69C.

The Tribunal followed a previous decision with similar facts, holding that the AO was not justified in rejecting the claim based on surrounding circumstances without legal evidence. The Tribunal deleted the additions made under sections 68 and 69C.

The Tribunal followed a previous decision with similar facts, holding that the AO was not justified in rejecting the claim based on surrounding circumstances without legal evidence. The Tribunal deleted the additions made under sections 68 and 69C.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte without deciding the issue on merits or considering the assessee's written submissions. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a fresh disposal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on previous ITAT orders in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The commission payments were held to be allowable.

The Tribunal held that the management service fees were at arm's length, aligning with previous rulings and subsequent acceptance by the revenue. Regarding depreciation on intellectual property, the Tribunal noted that the OECD guidelines recognize know-how as intangible property even if not registered.

The Tribunal held that no admission was made in the assessee's letter regarding handing over possession. Furthermore, the agreement was cancelled, and no transfer of land occurred, thus the addition was deleted. However, a cash payment to the municipality was upheld.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on previous ITAT orders in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The commission payments were held to be allowable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on previous ITAT orders in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The commission payments were held to be allowable.

The Tribunal held that since the Revenue did not challenge the CIT(A)'s finding that the reassessment was void ab initio, the appeal itself was not maintainable. Adjudicating on the merits of the additions would be academic.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO to recompute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) by considering only those investments that had yielded dividend income. This decision followed a previous ruling in the assessee's own case for a subsequent assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case before the AO during the reassessment proceedings. Citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal found the assessment order to be in violation of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition as the construction cost incurred up to 31.03.2009, which included the cost up to 31.03.2008, had already been accepted as genuine by the AO in a prior reassessment for AY 2009-10.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 274 was defective for not specifying the exact charge against the assessee. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the dismissal of the Revenue's SLP by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that Section 43B was not applicable as no deduction was claimed for excise duty. It also ruled that depreciation is allowable on the entire block of assets. The disallowance of miscellaneous expenses was deleted, but a portion of legal and professional expenses was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that Section 43B was not applicable as no deduction was claimed for excise duty. It also ruled that depreciation is allowable on the entire block of assets. The disallowance of miscellaneous expenses was deleted, but a portion of legal and professional expenses was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that Section 43B was not applicable as no deduction was claimed for excise duty. It also ruled that depreciation is allowable on the entire block of assets. The disallowance of miscellaneous expenses was deleted, but a portion of legal and professional expenses was confirmed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance for lease rent, finding the AO misunderstood the payments. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of depreciation disallowance, as the chassis was part of the block of assets from earlier years.

The Tribunal held that the revaluation of assets by the firm, which the assessee continued to hold, does not result in any profit or income. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) that no capital gains were taxable under Section 45(3) or otherwise.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(E) rejected the application for exemption because the assessee failed to establish that the institution was run solely for educational purposes and not for profit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity by the AO during assessment proceedings. Citing Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment, as the reasons recorded were vague and based on borrowed satisfaction from the DIT(Inv.) report. The failure to dispose of the assessee's objections also rendered the reopening invalid.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment. The assessee should be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the loss from the abandoned project was a revenue loss allowable under Section 37 of the Act, citing jurisdictional High Court decisions. The issue of prior period income was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.