ITAT Kolkata Judgments — May 2019

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of fabrication charges, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal also found that the addition related to Section 41 was a double addition as the assessee had already added it back.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of fabrication charges, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal also found that the addition related to Section 41 was a double addition as the assessee had already added it back.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee correctly applied Rule 7 of the Income Tax Rules by valuing sugarcane at the market price at the gate of the sugar division. The disallowances made by the AO were deemed unwarranted.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2002-03 as no ground was raised challenging the quashing of the rectification order. For AY 2003-04, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of miscellaneous expenses. For AY 2004-05, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on the validity of the Section 143(2) notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal for AY 2002-03 as no ground was raised challenging the quashing of the rectification order. For AY 2003-04, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of miscellaneous expenses. For AY 2004-05, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on the validity of the Section 143(2) notice.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in deleting the addition on wastage as the AO's comparison with a subsidiary engaged in bulk production was inappropriate. Similarly, the addition on customer advances was deleted as the liability still existed in the books and the AO lacked cogent evidence of cessation of liability.

The Tribunal held that the purchases themselves were not bogus, especially since the sales arising from these purchases were accepted by the AO. It further noted that the assessee's disclosed Gross Profit (GP) rate for the year was higher than the average of preceding and succeeding years, and therefore, no addition was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the sales tax component of bad debts written off was allowable as a business loss. It also upheld the deletion of interest disallowance related to investment in a subsidiary, finding no borrowed funds were used. The reimbursement of travelling expenses was also allowed as it was for the assessee's business interests.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's judgment in the assessee's own case. The disallowance of provision for retirement benefits and the treatment of interest income were decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal decided to remand the matters to the lower authorities for fresh consideration. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to present evidence and for verification of whether the expenses were claimed in the assessee's profit and loss account.

The Tribunal decided to remand the matters to the lower authorities for fresh consideration. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to present evidence and for verification of whether the expenses were claimed in the assessee's profit and loss account.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the dividend earned. It directed the AO to restrict further disallowance, considering the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made necessary inquiries and applied his mind to the facts, consciously deciding that Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable. The Tribunal also noted that interest was paid on the loans and the assessee was not a shareholder in the lending company, further supporting the non-applicability of the section.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made necessary inquiries and applied his mind to the facts, consciously deciding that Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable. The Tribunal also noted that interest was paid on the loans and the assessee was not a shareholder in the lending company, further supporting the non-applicability of the section.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made necessary inquiries and applied his mind to the facts, consciously deciding that Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable. The Tribunal also noted that interest was paid on the loans and the assessee was not a shareholder in the lending company, further supporting the non-applicability of the section.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had made necessary inquiries and applied his mind to the facts, consciously deciding that Section 2(22)(e) was not applicable. The Tribunal also noted that interest was paid on the loans and the assessee was not a shareholder in the lending company, further supporting the non-applicability of the section.

The tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to effectively plead its case before the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, finding that the assessee had provided reconciliation and documentary evidence to explain the difference in stock. The evidence corroborated the fact that the additional stock was purchased and received on the day of the survey.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own previous orders in favour of the assessee regarding Section 80IB deduction. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance on development cost allocation, finding no infirmity in the assessee's method.

The Tribunal held that the omission of Section 92BA(i) by the Finance Act, 2017, meant that the provision was deemed never to have been on the statute book. Consequently, the cognizance taken by the AO and the reference made to the TPO under Section 92CA were invalid.

The Tribunal held that the omission of Section 92BA(i) by the Finance Act, 2017, meant that the provision was deemed never to have been on the statute book. Consequently, the cognizance taken by the AO and the reference made to the TPO under Section 92CA were invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own previous orders in favour of the assessee regarding Section 80IB deduction. It also upheld the deletion of disallowance on development cost allocation, finding no infirmity in the assessee's method.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and lacked proper reasoning, failing to adjudicate one of the grounds raised by the assessee. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that since the Section 263 order was quashed, the consequential assessment order passed by the AO became non-est. Therefore, the CIT(A) should have cancelled the assessment instead of dismissing the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing details of the share subscribing companies, including their PAN, ITRs, bank statements, and confirmations. The AO's adverse view based solely on the failure to produce directors was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the omission of Section 92BA(i) by the Finance Act, 2017, meant that the provision was deemed never to have been on the statute book. Consequently, the cognizance taken by the AO and the reference made to the TPO under Section 92CA were invalid.

The Tribunal noted that a significant portion of the share capital was subscribed by M/s. Brightstar Vincom Pvt. Ltd., whose assessment for the same AY had already been completed. This fact was not considered by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity and genuineness of the unsecured loan from M/s. ABM Finlease Pvt. Ltd. by providing sufficient documentation, including bank transactions, PAN card, audited accounts, and ITR acknowledgments. Similarly, for other lenders, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided adequate proof of identity and genuineness of transactions, warranting the deletion of additions and disallowances.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention that the period of receipt of the amount needed verification. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for verification of the exact period of receipt.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot recompute the disallowance under Rule 8D without recording dissatisfaction with the assessee's suo motu offer. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-compliance due to her husband's severe illness. Consequently, the ex-parte orders were set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had a sufficient cause for non-appearance before the CIT(A) due to traffic blockage. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention that the details of the bad debts being offered to tax were not furnished to the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable because the show-cause notice issued by the AO was defective, failing to specify whether the proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the favorable view for the assessee, the penalty was directed to be cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings under Section 153C was inadequate and improper, as it failed to provide clear reasons for the seized material belonging to the assessee. Consequently, the assessments were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which had deleted the addition. The Tribunal followed a previous decision where the facts and law were similar, and the revenue could not point out any difference.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making an addition of Rs. 1.62 crore as Rs. 32 lakhs pertained to earlier years. For the current year's share subscription of Rs. 1.30 crore, the assessee had discharged its onus by providing documents proving identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the subscribers.

The Tribunal held that the holding period of the shares should include the period the assessee was a member of the BSE, as per Section 2(42A)(ha) of the Act. The cost of acquisition of the shares is the cost of the original membership card.

The tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to effectively plead its case before the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.