ITAT Kolkata Judgments — April 2019

The Tribunal found that the statistics presented by the assessee regarding turnover, labour charges, and profit percentages over various years demonstrated that the declared profits were reasonable. The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was an estimation of expenditure and deleted it.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was defective as it did not specify whether the charge was for concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the dismissal of the Revenue's SLP by the Supreme Court, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal, following CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn. This was due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the prior period expenditure, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of crystallization during the relevant year. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was directed to be re-computed by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. It ruled that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation for the expenses, and the non-service of notices alone was not sufficient to treat the expenses as bogus. Regarding interest, the Tribunal found that a portion of the interest paid on loans utilized for advancing interest-free loans to a sister concern could be disallowed, and directed the AO to verify the exact amount.

The Tribunal held that the payments received for the sale of software were for the use of a 'copyrighted article' and not for the transfer of 'copyright rights'. Therefore, these receipts did not constitute royalty under Article 12 of the India-Ireland DTAA.

The Tribunal held that the statutory provision for levying late fees under Section 234E, through the mechanism of Section 200A, was not applicable for the period prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the imposition of such fees was not sustainable.

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 Karnataka High Court, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It was held that the discrepancy was a bonafide mistake and that the municipality's income is exempt under Section 10(20), thus any such addition would also be exempt.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It held that the appeal was not maintainable as the Assessing Officer had recommended against appealing on most issues, and the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals.

The Tribunal held that undisclosed purchases, for which no payment was made and which were not part of closing stock, should only be taxed on the gross profit. The disallowance of brokerage and commission was confirmed due to the assessee's failure to prove genuineness and provide addresses of payees.

Both parties agreed that the issue should be remanded back to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to submit evidence and for the AO to conduct proper inquiries. The Tribunal restored the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the evidence on merits and had passed an ex parte order without proper adjudication. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued under Section 274 of the Act was bad in law because it did not specify the charge against the assessee. Following the decision of the Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal directed that the penalty be cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the assessee could not properly present its case before the Assessing Officer due to non-response to the summons. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should decide the appeal on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remanded back.

The Tribunal held that the law assists the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. Considering the non-appearance and lack of interest, the appeal was treated as unadmitted.

The Tribunal, citing the principle of vigilance and relevant case laws, treated the appeal as unadmitted. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the statutory provision for levying late fees under Section 234E, through the mechanism of Section 200A, was not applicable for the period prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the imposition of such fees was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the statutory provision for levying late fees under Section 234E, through the mechanism of Section 200A, was not applicable for the period prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the imposition of such fees was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the donation was made when the recipient institution held the necessary approval for receiving such contributions. Therefore, the subsequent withdrawal of approval should not affect the assessee's vested right to claim the deduction. The disallowance was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the statutory provision for levying late fees under Section 234E, through the mechanism of Section 200A, was not applicable for the period prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the imposition of such fees was not sustainable.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the issues of disallowance of interest on capital work-in-progress and Section 14A to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. Ground related to depreciation was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard, adhering to principles of natural justice, subject to payment of costs.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed against the original order, which was subsequently revised. The assessee's counsel stated the appeal was not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in finding that the rectification was not justified as it was not an error apparent on the record. The Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee's revised return in a prior order, making the Revenue's grounds unsustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoning, which relied on established judicial precedents regarding accounting methods and the acceptance of such methods by the revenue in prior years.

The Tribunal held that the law assists the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. Consequently, the appeal was treated as unadmitted and dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal decided to delete paragraphs 5.1 and 6 from the original order as they contained typographical errors and were not pertinent to the assessee's appeal. This corrigendum forms part of the original order.

The tribunal held that loss due to embezzlement by an employee is incidental to business and should be allowed as a deduction in the year it is discovered. Since the loss was discovered in the relevant assessment year, it was allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee's explanation for the cash possession was not supported by evidence and that the claim of cash savings and loans was not common human behavior.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal due to repeated non-appearance. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a fair opportunity to present evidence and that similar cases have been restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the CIT(A) had accepted the Assessing Officer's remand report which supported the assessee. The Tribunal relied on a Madras High Court decision on this point.

The Tribunal restored the first issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of whether payees had offered the income for assessment. For the second issue concerning interest paid to a PSU, the disallowance was deleted. The third issue regarding proportionate interest disallowance was also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that PF and ESI dues paid before the return filing date are allowable. Regarding the donation, it was held that the assessee cannot be penalized for the subsequent withdrawal of the institution's approval if the donation was made when the approval was valid, and no evidence of cash refund was presented.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not decided the case on merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly discussed the relevant facts and evidence provided by the assessee. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue of lease rent was covered by its previous decisions. Similarly, the issue of commission payments to non-residents was also covered by prior Tribunal rulings, which distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Transmission Corporation of India.

The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the interest income was already reduced by the assessee and to re-compute the deduction accordingly. It also instructed the AO to verify the facts regarding finance charges allocation. The estimated disallowance of head office expenses was deleted.

The Tribunal restored the issue of excise duty to the AO for factual verification of the assessee's reconciliation. However, it deleted the addition on account of share application money, finding that the assessee had discharged its burden regarding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the subscribers.

The Tribunal agreed to rectify the mistake in the first paragraph of its previous order. The dates of the CIT(A) orders were corrected as per the assessee's request.

The Tribunal held that while the expenses were not fully supported by third-party vouchers, a complete disallowance was not justified. The disallowance was restricted to 10% of the expenditure to meet the interests of justice.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 50C(1), which allows for the stamp value on the date of the agreement to be considered, is curative in nature and should be applied retrospectively. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal agreed to rectify the mistake in the first paragraph of its previous order. The dates of the CIT(A) orders were corrected as per the assessee's request.

The ITAT restored the issue to the file of the lower appellate authority for fresh adjudication. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund for non-appearance.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, considering the disallowances made for both assessment years to be reasonable. Therefore, the disallowances were confirmed.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was due to a lack of proper opportunity for the assessee to present evidence and the inadequacy of the inquiry conducted by the authorities below.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in allowing the set off of MAT credit before calculating surcharge and education cess. The decision of the Allahabad High Court on the computation of tax liability as per ITR-6 was followed.