ITAT Kolkata Judgments — March 2019

The tribunal agreed with the Revenue that the peak credit represents unexplained seed capital or investment, which is correctly added in addition to the profit on turnover. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was upheld.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity to substantiate its claim.

The tribunal rectified the previously mentioned incorrect figures for LTCG and LTCL, replacing them with the correct amounts as submitted by the assessee's authorized representative. These corrected figures are now part of the original order.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the LTCG claims were bogus and constituted unexplained cash credits. The transactions were found to be accommodation entries designed to claim exempt income without paying tax.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the LTCG claims were bogus and constituted unexplained cash credits. The transactions were found to be accommodation entries designed to claim exempt income without paying tax.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the LTCG claims were bogus and constituted unexplained cash credits. The transactions were found to be accommodation entries designed to claim exempt income without paying tax.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the LTCG claims were bogus and constituted unexplained cash credits. The transactions were found to be accommodation entries designed to claim exempt income without paying tax.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the LTCG claims were bogus and constituted unexplained cash credits. The transactions were found to be accommodation entries designed to claim exempt income without paying tax.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the LTCG claims were bogus and constituted unexplained cash credits. The transactions were found to be accommodation entries designed to claim exempt income without paying tax.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the LTCG claims were bogus and constituted unexplained cash credits. The transactions were found to be accommodation entries designed to claim exempt income without paying tax.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the LTCG claims were bogus and constituted unexplained cash credits. The transactions were found to be accommodation entries designed to claim exempt income without paying tax.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the LTCG claims were bogus and constituted unexplained cash credits. The transactions were found to be accommodation entries designed to claim exempt income without paying tax.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the LTCG claims were bogus and constituted unexplained cash credits. The transactions were found to be accommodation entries designed to claim exempt income without paying tax.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the LTCG claims were bogus and constituted unexplained cash credits. The transactions were found to be accommodation entries designed to claim exempt income without paying tax.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the LTCG claims were bogus and constituted unexplained cash credits. The transactions were found to be accommodation entries designed to claim exempt income without paying tax.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the LTCG claims were bogus and constituted unexplained cash credits. The transactions were found to be accommodation entries designed to claim exempt income without paying tax.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the LTCG claims were bogus and constituted unexplained cash credits. The transactions were found to be accommodation entries designed to claim exempt income without paying tax.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the LTCG claims were bogus and constituted unexplained cash credits. The transactions were found to be accommodation entries designed to claim exempt income without paying tax.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including purchase bills, share certificates, amalgamation orders, and bank statements, to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The revenue failed to provide contrary material evidence to support its allegations.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the interest disallowance. It found that advances to partners were partly against their capital accounts and partly at the year-end, with related interest already addressed. Similarly, ad-hoc disallowances on salary and business promotion expenses lacked justification.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the interest disallowance. It found that advances to partners were partly against their capital accounts and partly at the year-end, with related interest already addressed. Similarly, ad-hoc disallowances on salary and business promotion expenses lacked justification.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the LTCG claims were bogus and constituted unexplained cash credits. The transactions were found to be accommodation entries designed to claim exempt income without paying tax.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the LTCG claims were bogus and constituted unexplained cash credits. The transactions were found to be accommodation entries designed to claim exempt income without paying tax.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the LTCG claims were bogus and constituted unexplained cash credits. The transactions were found to be accommodation entries designed to claim exempt income without paying tax.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the LTCG claims were bogus and constituted unexplained cash credits. The transactions were found to be accommodation entries designed to claim exempt income without paying tax.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the LTCG claims were bogus and constituted unexplained cash credits. The transactions were found to be accommodation entries designed to claim exempt income without paying tax.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the LTCG claims were bogus and constituted unexplained cash credits. The transactions were found to be accommodation entries designed to claim exempt income without paying tax.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the LTCG claims were bogus and constituted unexplained cash credits. The transactions were found to be accommodation entries designed to claim exempt income without paying tax.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the LTCG claims were bogus and constituted unexplained cash credits. The transactions were found to be accommodation entries designed to claim exempt income without paying tax.

The Tribunal upheld the assessee's contention that retention money is not income until it accrues. It directed the Assessing Officer to exclude retention money from sales and tax it when received, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the genuineness of the commission and freight payments. The inability to serve notices on some parties did not automatically render the expenses non-genuine.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the interest disallowance. It found that advances to partners were partly against their capital accounts and partly at the year-end, with related interest already addressed. Similarly, ad-hoc disallowances on salary and business promotion expenses lacked justification.

The Tribunal held that the date of actual service of the assessment order, not the date of its pronouncement, is to be considered for determining limitation. Following precedent, the Tribunal found the assessment order to be time-barred.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the losses. The Tribunal found that the transactions were conducted through the online trading system of recognized stock exchanges, routed through banking channels, and confirmed as genuine by the BSE.

The Tribunal, relying on a previous decision, directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the commission income at 0.5% of the deposits, considering it to be in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal noted that the expenses were consolidated on a monthly basis. If broken down daily per person, the threshold limit of Section 40A(3) might not have been breached. Therefore, the issue was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata was without jurisdiction due to the absence of a specific order under section 127 of the Act transferring jurisdiction. The revenue failed to produce any supporting documents for the alleged transfer.

The Tribunal accepted the application for rectification of the typographical error. It corrected the assessment year in its order dated 07.12.2018 from 2011-12 to 2005-06.

The Tribunal deleted the addition relating to Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of Guarantee fees, following its own orders for earlier assessment years. It also deleted the disallowance made under section 14A, relying on the principle that no exempt income was earned by the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee's income composition met the exceptions to Section 73, thus allowing the set off of losses. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection regarding Section 14A disallowance.

The Tribunal held that Chapter X of the Income Tax Act, concerning transfer pricing, could not be applied to the assessee for the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the TPO's adjustment for notional interest on the deemed loan was not sustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the amended provisions of Section 68 were not applicable to the assessment year in question. It also referred to various High Court and Supreme Court decisions which suggest that if the identity of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction through account payee cheque are established, the Assessing Officer should not enter into the return of the creditor and brand it as unworthy of credence.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for consideration of transferring the files to Karnataka, which has the jurisdiction. The assessee was directed to provide relevant evidence to the AO for this transfer.

The Tribunal held that the AO's action of restricting the disallowance to the dividend income was a plausible view, supported by High Court judgments. Therefore, the conditions for invoking Section 263 (erroneous and prejudicial to revenue) were not met.

The tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, citing legal precedents that emphasize the need for active pursuit of appeals.

The ITAT decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh verification. This decision was made subject to the assessee paying costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund within 20 days.

The ITAT decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh verification. This decision was made subject to the assessee paying costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund.

The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. This was subject to the assessee paying costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the locker's operational status and the nature of the transactions. If the locker was indeed non-operational, the addition would not be sustained without corroborative evidence.