ITAT Kolkata Judgments — April 2019

The Tribunal held that the TPO erred in applying the TNMM at the entity level, as the assessee was engaged in multiple revenue-generating activities with varied risks. The segment reporting, duly certified by the statutory auditor, correctly reflected the international transaction and its arm's length nature was accepted.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the substantive grounds raised by the assessee while passing an ex parte order. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order as contemplated by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeal is restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

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 restored the Section 14A disallowance issue to the AO for fresh consideration and allowed the assessee's claim for the full long-term capital loss based on the original acquisition dates of shares.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on bank deposits, being part of the assessee's core business of investment and lending, constituted business income. However, interest on income-tax refund was to be treated as income from other sources.

The Tribunal held that the additional income was offered voluntarily to rectify a bonafide mistake, not as a result of detection by the AO. Therefore, it did not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

The Tribunal held that loans received in cash from relatives, such as daughter and son-in-law, are not considered loans or deposits in the strict sense of Section 269SS. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271D is not sustainable.

The Tribunal restored the penalty proceedings back to the CIT(A) to be decided afresh after the decision in the quantum appeal. This was done in the interest of justice.

The Tribunal held that government securities are distinct from bonds and debentures and are eligible for indexation benefits under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act. It also directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction for education cess as a business expenditure.

The Tribunal held that government securities are eligible for indexation benefits under Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, distinguishing them from bonds and debentures. It also held that education cess is an allowable deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that income from undisclosed sales should be taxed on net profit, not gross profit. It also directed that only the gross profit on excess stock should be taxed, not the entire value.

The Tribunal held that income from undisclosed sales should be taxed on net profit, not gross profit. It also directed that only the gross profit on excess stock should be taxed, not the entire value.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the disallowance of purchases was not justified as the assessee had provided supporting documents and made payments through account payee cheques. The disallowance of expenses was also deemed unsustainable as it was based on an ad hoc estimate without identifying specific defects.

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the order. It agreed that the income earned outside India by the assessee, who was an NRI and a tax resident of Ireland, was not taxable in India as per Section 5(2) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the addition of long-term capital gains to book profit might constitute a double addition and remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification. The issue regarding write-offs was dismissed as not arising from the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that only the net profit on suppressed sales and the gross profit on excess stock should be taxed, not the entire suppressed sales or stock value. Disallowances under Section 40A(3) and 40(a)(ia) were deleted as income was estimated.

The Tribunal held that only the net profit on suppressed sales and the gross profit on excess stock should be taxed, not the entire suppressed sales or stock value. Disallowances under Section 40A(3) and 40(a)(ia) were deleted as income was estimated.

The Tribunal held that only net profit on suppressed sales should be taxed, not gross profit. It also directed that disallowances under Section 40A(3) and 40(a)(ia) should be deleted when income is estimated. For excess stock, only the gross profit embedded therein should be taxed.

The Tribunal held that income from undisclosed sales should be taxed on net profit, not gross profit. It also directed that only the gross profit on excess stock should be taxed, not the entire value.

The Tribunal held that income from suppressed sales should be taxed at net profit rate, not gross profit rate. It also directed that only the gross profit embedded in the excess stock should be taxed, not the entire value.

The Tribunal held that only the net profit on suppressed sales should be taxed, not the gross profit. It also directed that disallowances under Section 40A(3) and 40(a)(ia) should be deleted when income is estimated. For excess stock, only the gross profit embedded therein should be taxed.

The Tribunal held that only the net profit on suppressed sales and the gross profit on excess stock should be taxed, not the entire suppressed sales or stock value. Disallowances under Section 40A(3) and 40(a)(ia) were deleted as income was estimated.

The Tribunal held that only the net profit on suppressed sales and the gross profit on excess stock should be taxed, not the entire suppressed sales or stock value. Disallowances under Section 40A(3) and 40(a)(ia) were deleted as income was estimated.

The Tribunal held that only the net profit on suppressed sales should be taxed, not the gross profit. It also directed that disallowances under Section 40A(3) and 40(a)(ia) should be deleted when income is estimated. For excess stock, only the gross profit embedded therein should be taxed.

The Tribunal held that only net profit on suppressed sales should be taxed, not gross profit. It also directed that disallowances under Section 40A(3) and 40(a)(ia) should be deleted when income is estimated. For excess stock, only the gross profit embedded therein should be taxed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to Section 80IA and additional depreciation, citing consistency and manufacturing activity. The disallowance under Section 14A and its applicability to book profit were remanded to the AO. The deletion of additions for late deposit of employee contributions was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that income from undisclosed sales should be taxed on net profit, not gross profit. It also directed that only the gross profit on excess stock should be taxed, not the entire value.

The Tribunal held that only the net profit on suppressed sales should be taxed, not the gross profit. It also directed that disallowances under Section 40A(3) and 40(a)(ia) should be deleted when income is estimated. For excess stock, only the gross profit embedded therein should be taxed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the disallowance of purchases was not justified as the assessee had provided supporting documents and made payments through account payee cheques. The disallowance of expenses was also deemed unsustainable as it was based on an ad hoc estimate without identifying specific defects.

The Tribunal held that only the net profit on suppressed sales should be taxed, not the gross profit. It also directed that disallowances under Section 40A(3) and 40(a)(ia) should be deleted when income is estimated. For excess stock, only the gross profit embedded therein should be taxed.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention that if the assessee maintained proper books of account, they should be produced for verification. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after examining the books.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention that the assessee's explanation regarding sales receipts required verification. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after verifying the assessee's explanation.

The Tribunal held that the administrative and IT support services received by the assessee from its AE were not stewardship functions and were indeed beneficial, thus establishing their arm's length nature. The Tribunal also confirmed the assessee's position regarding the tested party for transfer pricing.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessee's books of accounts were rightly accepted. It also agreed with the deletion of the disallowance of the replacement provision, finding it to be a valid warranty claim based on scientific estimation.

The Tribunal held that the administrative and IT support services received by the assessee from its AE were not stewardship functions and were indeed beneficial, thus establishing their arm's length nature. The Tribunal also confirmed the assessee's position regarding the tested party for transfer pricing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove that the deposits were derived from commodity exchange transactions, as the exchange's records did not link the assessee's PAN. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the entire credit side of deposits was added, requiring a re-computation of the peak balance.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable. The PCIT had not conducted independent verification to establish that the AO's order was erroneous, relying instead on the possibility of a different outcome after further inquiry.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the Section 14A disallowance as no exempt income was derived. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s restriction of employee and other expenses to 50% in the interest of consistency.

The Tribunal held that the income earned from services rendered outside India is not taxable in India on a receipt basis, even if received in India. The assessee had also paid TDS in Nigeria, negating the argument of double non-taxation.

The Tribunal restored the issue of quantitative shortage to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance for belated payment of employee's PF/ESI contribution.

The Tribunal restored the issue of quantitative shortage to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowance for belated payment of employee's PF/ESI contribution.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision that Rule 8D was not applicable in this case. The further disallowance made by the AO was deleted as it resulted in a total disallowance exceeding the exempt dividend income earned.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's repeated non-appearance and adjournments, treated the appeal as unadmitted. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the nature and purpose of the advances, making the write-off not allowable as a business loss. However, regarding late payment surcharge on electricity bills, the Tribunal found it was not interest liable for TDS and remanded the issue to the AO for verification of recipient's tax payment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the nature and purpose of the advances, making the write-off not allowable as a business loss. However, regarding late payment surcharge on electricity bills, the Tribunal found it was not interest liable for TDS and remanded the issue to the AO for verification of recipient's tax payment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to present evidence before the AO. Relying on a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the issues back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that depreciation cannot be considered as expenditure for disallowance under Section 14A. The revenue's appeals were dismissed as the tax effect was below the threshold prescribed by CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that depreciation cannot be considered as expenditure for disallowance under Section 14A. The revenue's appeals were dismissed as the tax effect was below the threshold prescribed by CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.