ITAT Kolkata Judgments — January 2019

The tribunal remanded the Section 40A(3) issue to the Assessing Officer to verify if cash payments or aggregate payments to a single payee exceeded ₹20,000 in a day. For the estimated disallowance on various expenses, the tribunal reduced the disallowance rate from 10% to 5%, noting that genuineness was not doubted in principle.

The Tribunal held that the LTCG was indeed to be treated as unexplained cash credits, upholding the Assessing Officer's action. The commission paid for these accommodation entries was also confirmed as an addition.

The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had deleted the same disallowance for a prior assessment year involving the same payees. Following judicial consistency, the Tribunal deleted the impugned disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the loan transaction did not fall under the definition of deemed dividend as it was part of business transactions. It also held that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable in the absence of exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly considered the relevant census data to determine if the branches qualified as rural. The Revenue failed to demonstrate any illegality or irregularity in the CIT(A)'s decision based on the statutory definition of a rural branch.

The tribunal upheld the disallowance of the trading loss due to lack of genuineness. However, it allowed the deletion of Section 14A disallowance as the assessee had not derived any exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred by not providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing while deciding the rectification petition. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal partially allowed the appeal by reducing the disallowance on motor car expenses. However, it upheld the disallowance of foreign tour expenses and the addition of the contractual amount due to the assessee's failure to provide sufficient justification.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of administrative expenditure was not applicable as there was no actual expenditure incurred by the assessee under that head. Reliance was placed on a previous Tribunal decision for this principle.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte without discussing the relevant facts and circumstances. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing three effective opportunities of hearing.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a fresh appeal against the original disallowance before the CIT(A). The delay in filing the fresh appeal would be considered by the CIT(A) in light of the time spent pursuing the rectification remedy.

The Tribunal deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had provided all relevant documentation and affidavits retracting the search statement. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions where similar disallowances were deleted.

The tribunal deleted the addition of ₹5 lakh as M/s Coramandal International Ltd. had already debited this sum. The tribunal restored two other issues regarding additions of ₹1 lakh and ₹90,739/- to the Assessing Officer for re-conciliation and to avoid double addition.

The Tribunal held that Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable to reimbursements of expenses made on a cost-to-cost basis, especially when there is no income component in the hands of the payees. Therefore, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the relevant facts or provide a detailed adjudication. Therefore, the appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's purchase accounts were not settled in the impugned year, making the sum corresponding purchasing expenditure. Considering the revenue-neutral nature of the case, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of ₹4 lac for land purchases was erroneous as the assessee was engaged in land pulling business and sales were treated as business income. It also held that Section 40A(3) disallowance does not apply to businesses assessed under the presumptive scheme of Section 44AD.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) is not applicable when the assessee has not claimed any administrative expenditure. The purpose of the provision is to disallow only actual expenditure incurred.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a letter to withdraw the appeal and the Revenue did not oppose it. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the LTCG was indeed to be treated as unexplained cash credits, upholding the Assessing Officer's action. The commission paid for these accommodation entries was also confirmed as an addition.

The Tribunal held that the LTCG was indeed to be treated as unexplained cash credits, upholding the Assessing Officer's action. The commission paid for these accommodation entries was also confirmed as an addition.

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's action, finding that the transactions were accommodation entries to claim bogus LTCG as exempt. The artificial rise and fall in share prices, coupled with regulatory investigations, indicated manipulation.

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's action, finding that the transactions were accommodation entries to claim bogus LTCG as exempt. The artificial rise and fall in share prices, coupled with regulatory investigations, indicated manipulation.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AA was not applicable as the assessee had complied with the requirements of Section 92D by maintaining and producing documents within the stipulated time. The amendment to Section 271AA, which was the basis for the penalty, was not applicable retrospectively to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal found that the assessment order did not clearly mention the date of alleged non-compliance. Since the assessment was completed after considering the assessee's submissions, the Tribunal held that it was not a fit case for penalty under section 271(1)(b).

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 13,69,200/- as deemed capital gain was erroneous and needed to be deleted. The Tribunal noted that the AIR information indicated a registration of property on 16.04.2010, but the Agreement of Conveyance was dated 21.08.2008, and the Agreement for Sale was dated 29.04.2008. Crucially, all relevant activities, including the agreement, payment of consideration (through bank finance by the buyer on 12.08.2008), and handing over of possession, occurred during Assessment Year 2009-10. Therefore, the transaction did not pertain to Assessment Year 2011-12, even though the registration took place later. The Tribunal also observed that the property sold was part of the developer's share (First Floor) and did not belong to the assessee or the partnership firm, City Tower. The consideration was received by the developer, not the assessee. The Tribunal relied on the judgments in Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT and M. Siva Parvathi v. ITO to support its reasoning that the year of chargeability is determined by the date of the contract and substantial performance, not just registration. Consequently, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition for inflated salary, finding the assessee's reconciliation of salary figures to be valid. For undisclosed income, a partial addition was confirmed due to a remaining unreconciled amount. The disallowance of travelling and repair expenses was deleted as the AO made an ad-hoc disallowance without sufficient evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex parte and the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee. This decision was based on the binding judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court.

The Tribunal held that re-assessments not making any addition on the specified reasons for re-opening, but on other issues, are not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned re-assessment was quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to Transfer Pricing adjustments and Section 80HHC deductions, dismissing the Revenue's grounds on these issues. However, for additions under Section 40(a)(ia), the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee. This decision was based on the binding judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearing and did not show serious interest in pursuing the appeal. Relying on Supreme Court and ITAT precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-appearance.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive hearing notices during appellate proceedings and therefore could not plead their case. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside to grant the assessee another opportunity.

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's action, finding that the transactions were accommodation entries to claim bogus LTCG as exempt. The artificial rise and fall in share prices, coupled with regulatory investigations, indicated manipulation.

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's action, finding that the transactions were accommodation entries aimed at generating bogus LTCG. The Tribunal noted that the share price movements were artificial and not commensurate with the company's business, with SEBI also investigating similar abnormal price increases.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide an adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. Therefore, the delay in filing the lower appeal was condoned, and the CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not consider the assessment records and findings of the Assessing Officer. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issue on merits and the order was ex-parte, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition on unaccounted purchases to the extent of the cellular operator's TDS statement. For the commission receipts, the addition was restricted to the gross profit component of 0.58%.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not consider the assessment records and findings to decide the issues on merits, and the order was ex-parte. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal declined the assessee's ground regarding the disallowance of set off of brought forward long-term capital gains as it did not arise from the assessment order. The other ground regarding interest was treated as consequential.

The Tribunal held that the assessee appeared to be not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal. Relying on Supreme Court and ITAT precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-appearance.

The Tribunal, citing the principle of vigilance and non-prosecution, treated the appeal as unadmitted. The assessee's consistent non-cooperative attitude indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was given an opportunity to present evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness of share subscribers, and genuineness of transactions.

The Tribunal clarified that the respondent in the appeal is ITO, Ward-10(1), Kolkata, not CIT(A)-7, Kolkata as mistakenly mentioned in the original order.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Applying the principle that law assists the vigilant, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Citing legal principles and relevant case law, the Tribunal decided to treat the appeal as unadmitted.

The Tribunal held that excess TDS deposits in earlier years should be adjusted against TDS liabilities in subsequent years, as per Section 245 and CPC(TDS) communication. The assessee is entitled to adjustment of excess TDS deposits against subsequent liabilities.