ITAT Kolkata Judgments — April 2019

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 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 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 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 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 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 ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. This was subject to the assessee paying costs to the Prime Minister Relief Fund.

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 held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the assessee had already included the profits from the transactions in its books. The Tribunal also relied on previous judgments regarding CCM and found that the additions were made on surmise and conjecture.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee maintained audited books of account and the AO did not reject them, an ad hoc disallowance without identifying specific unverifiable expenditures was unsustainable. The estimated disallowance was deleted.

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 to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

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 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 held that the notice issued under Section 274 of the Act was defective for not specifying whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the principle of adopting the view favorable to the assessee when there are conflicting judgments, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty.

The Tribunal held that interest on NPAs cannot be brought to tax based on the real income theory. Notional income is not taxable, and Section 43D does not mandate accrual basis for NBFCs regarding bad debts.

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 AO's reference to the DVO was not valid for the assessment year 2012-13, as the relevant amendment to Section 55A was applicable from AY 2013-14. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to allow exemption was justified.

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 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 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 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 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 noted that the assessee had not derived any exempt income in the impugned assessment year. Therefore, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was deleted.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 is not applicable as the increase in share capital was due to a scheme of amalgamation and involved book adjustments, not actual cash receipts. The assessee had discharged its initial onus.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm penalties to the extent they were based on corroborative evidence seized during the search. The assessees' cross-objections seeking to delete the penalties entirely were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the Delhi High Court's decision in Cheminvest Ltd. It ruled that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if no exempt income was actually earned by the assessee in the relevant year.

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable because the show cause notice issued under Section 274 did not specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal directed the cancellation of the penalty.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm penalties to the extent they were based on corroborative evidence seized during the search. The assessees' cross-objections seeking to delete the penalties entirely were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm penalties to the extent they were based on corroborative evidence seized during the search. The assessees' cross-objections seeking to delete the penalties entirely were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm penalties to the extent they were based on corroborative evidence seized during the search. The assessees' cross-objections seeking to delete the penalties entirely were dismissed.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The learned DR did not object to the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271AAB should only be confirmed if based on corroborative evidence satisfying the parameters of undisclosed income as per Explanation (c). Penalties not based on such evidence were deleted, while those based on evidence found during the search were confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was defective because it did not clearly specify the grounds for imposing the penalty. Following established precedents, the Tribunal found the penalty proceedings to be invalid on this count alone.

The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271AAB should only be confirmed if based on corroborative evidence satisfying the parameters of undisclosed income. Penalties not supported by such evidence were deleted, while those based on evidence found during the search were confirmed.

The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271AAB should only be confirmed if based on corroborative evidence satisfying the parameters of undisclosed income as per Explanation (c). Penalties not based on such evidence were deleted, while those based on evidence found during the search were confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings framed on a non-existent entity are void ab initio and unsustainable in law. The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment on this basis.

The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271AAB should only be confirmed if based on corroborative evidence satisfying the parameters of undisclosed income as per Explanation (c). Penalties not based on such evidence were deleted, while those based on evidence found during the search were confirmed.

The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271AAB should only be confirmed if based on corroborative evidence satisfying the parameters of undisclosed income as per Explanation (c). Penalties not based on such evidence were deleted, while those based on evidence found during the search were confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance as the issue had been previously remanded and the assessee had provided sufficient documentation to support the claim.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue of purchases from Tirupati Mercantile & Trading Co. Ltd. and G.B. Promoters back to the Assessing Officer for verification. This was due to the assessee's failure to submit necessary purchase bills and evidence to substantiate the bona fides of these transactions.

The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271AAB should only be confirmed if based on corroborative evidence satisfying the parameters of undisclosed income as per Explanation (c). Penalties not based on such evidence were deleted, while those based on evidence found during the search were confirmed.

The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271AAB should only be confirmed if based on corroborative evidence satisfying the parameters of undisclosed income as per Explanation (c). Penalties not based on such evidence were deleted, while those based on evidence found during the search were confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that an appeal requires active prosecution, not just filing.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings framed on a non-existent entity are void ab initio and unsustainable in law. The Tribunal admitted the assessee's additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment on this basis.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn since the tax demand was Nil and the revenue did not object.

The Tribunal held that to be eligible for deduction under Section 80-IC(2)(b), the assessee must engage in both 'processing' and 'raising' of plantation crops. Purchasing green leaves from the market and processing them does not satisfy the 'raising' condition.

The Tribunal noted that the constitutional validity of a related statutory provision was under challenge before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to re-adjudicate the issue afresh, keeping the consequential adjudication in abeyance.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to confirm penalties to the extent they were based on corroborative evidence seized during the search. The assessees' cross-objections seeking to delete the penalties entirely were dismissed.

The Tribunal found a reasonable cause for the assessee's absence before the CIT(A). Therefore, the ex parte order was set aside.