ITAT Kolkata Judgments — July 2019

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in applying the Assessing Officer's profit rate when using audited gross receipts. It deemed it appropriate to apply a reasonable net profit rate of 65% for weighbridge/parking and 15% for brick business, modifying the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the commission payment and the services rendered by the agency, which was found to be untraceable and involved in providing bogus entries.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record and furnish reasons for reopening the assessment, rendering the reassessment order bad in law. Consequently, the preliminary ground raised by the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal, following its own precedent for a previous assessment year, decided to remand the matter back to the AO. This was to allow the AO to consider the additional evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the source of funds for investments.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was a duplicate and had been wrongly filed by the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that salary accrued to a non-resident for services rendered outside India is not taxable in India, even if received in an NRE account in India. This decision was based on High Court rulings and CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in applying the Assessing Officer's profit rate when using audited gross receipts. It deemed it appropriate to apply a reasonable net profit rate of 65% for weighbridge/parking and 15% for brick business, modifying the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the interest paid on borrowed funds for acquiring shares, which were considered stock-in-trade or strategic investments for business purposes, is allowable as a deduction. Similarly, the processing fee on such loans was also allowed as a revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided documentary evidence like contract notes and sale consideration received by cheque, and that shares were held in demat accounts. It also referred to previous coordinate bench decisions that upheld similar LTCG claims for the same scrip.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided documents like contract notes and sale consideration received by cheque, and relied on previous decisions where similar LTCG claims for the same scrip were upheld. The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had not pointed out any specific fault in the documents provided by the assessee.