ITAT Kolkata Judgments — November 2019

The Tribunal held that since the primary grounds of appeal, which determined the nature of the asset as agricultural land, were decided in favour of the assessee, the grounds challenging the invocation of Section 50C of the Act were rendered infructuous and did not require adjudication. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal quashed the directions given by the CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment of the partnership firm, M/s. Shree Annapurna Oil Mills, and tax the long-term capital gains. The Tribunal reasoned that the CIT(A) had exceeded his powers and jurisdiction by issuing such directions concerning an entity that was not a party before him. This decision was based on the principle that an appellate authority's powers are limited to the subject matter of the appeal, and they cannot issue directions affecting parties not before them. The Tribunal relied on its own decision in Shalini Agarwal vs. ITO and the Calcutta High Court's decision in R.S. Davey vs. CIT, which held that an appellate authority cannot give directions to the Assessing Officer concerning an assessment year or an entity not under appeal. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The tribunal held that the issue was covered in favour of the assessee by a previous decision of a co-ordinate bench for earlier assessment years. Therefore, the tribunal was bound by that decision.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to be heard before the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) due to a violation of natural justice. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that they did not receive proper opportunity before the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that when the income is estimated, no separate disallowance can be made under Section 40A(3). Relying on High Court decisions, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient enquiry into the foreign assignment allowance and had taken a permissible view in law. Therefore, the CIT's action under Section 263 was without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the donation was eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) as the recipient foundation possessed the necessary registrations and notifications. The withdrawal of recognition from the payee organization would not affect the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction of the assessee lies with the Income Tax Officer at Bhavnagar, Gujarat, not with the DCIT in Kolkata, as the AO in Kolkata lacked jurisdiction over the case.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 is applicable only for cash or cheque credits, not for the adjustment of pre-existing debts. Since the assessee took over debts from the Official Liquidator and issued shares against them, it was not a cash credit. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. It restored the issue of addition on land to the AO for fresh adjudication and deleted the addition made on account of gift from the father.

The tribunal found a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the ex-parte orders. Therefore, the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal found a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the ex-parte orders. Therefore, the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer is to examine if Kolkata Port Trust offered the lease rent income for taxation, in which case the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) would not arise.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction of the assessee lies with the Income Tax Officer at Bhavnagar, Gujarat, not with the DCIT in Kolkata, as the AO in Kolkata lacked jurisdiction over the case.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction of the assessee lies with the Income Tax Officer at Bhavnagar, Gujarat, not with the DCIT in Kolkata, as the AO in Kolkata lacked jurisdiction over the case.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction of the assessee lies with the Income Tax Officer at Bhavnagar, Gujarat, not with the DCIT in Kolkata, as the AO in Kolkata lacked jurisdiction over the case.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to be heard before the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal found that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that depreciation on assets acquired in earlier years, even if their cost was treated as application of income, is allowable. The amendment to Section 11(6) disallowing such depreciation was prospective.

The Tribunal held that the entire undisclosed receipt cannot be treated as income, as no expenditure was booked against it. Only the profit earned from such receipts is taxable.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT failed to demonstrate how the alleged infirmities in the Assessing Officer's order were erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Pr. CIT's revision was based on surmises and conjectures without proper verification of facts.

The tribunal found a violation of the principles of natural justice due to the ex-parte orders. Therefore, the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient enquiry into the foreign assignment allowance and had taken a permissible view in law. Therefore, the CIT's action under Section 263 was without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient enquiry into the foreign assignment allowance and had taken a permissible view in law. Therefore, the CIT's action under Section 263 was without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient enquiry into the foreign assignment allowance and had taken a permissible view in law. Therefore, the CIT's action under Section 263 was without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient enquiry into the foreign assignment allowance and had taken a permissible view in law. Therefore, the CIT's action under Section 263 was without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient enquiry into the foreign assignment allowance and had taken a permissible view in law. Therefore, the CIT's action under Section 263 was without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient enquiry into the foreign assignment allowance and had taken a permissible view in law. Therefore, the CIT's action under Section 263 was without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for proper allocation of capital gains. It also noted that the CIT(A)'s finding regarding the non-obligation to refer to the DVO under Section 50C was contrary to High Court pronouncements.

The Tribunal held that an order passed under section 264 of the Income Tax Act is not appealable before the Tribunal as per section 253. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular for filing appeals. The exception mentioned in the later circular was not applicable to the facts of this case, which did not involve bogus Long Term Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss in penny stocks.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not frame points of adjudication nor made a detailed adjudication as required by law. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A). The matters were remanded back for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessees.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided three substantive grounds on merits and restored these issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal also restored the Section 40(a)(ia) issue for fresh adjudication, relying on a coordinate bench ruling regarding the retrospective effect of a statutory amendment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay. It accepted the assessee's reconciliation statement for the share transaction difference and deleted the addition. The issue of undisclosed interest income was restored to the Assessing Officer for factual verification.

The Tribunal cancelled the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) for AY 2012-13, finding it unsustainable. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and directed the CIT(A) to admit and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A). The matters were remanded back for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessees.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one of the appeals, finding it was due to improper legal advice. While affirming the CIT's power to revise the assessment due to the AO's lack of inquiry, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the issues with fresh opportunities for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that cash loans received from family members, such as mother and wife, do not violate Section 269SS if they are mere book entries and not intended to evade detection. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271D was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 143(2) must be issued after the filing of a return in response to a Section 148 notice for a reassessment to be valid. The absence of such a notice is fatal to the assessment order and cannot be condoned by Section 292BB.

The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 143(2) must be issued after the filing of a return in response to a Section 148 notice for a reassessment to be valid. Failure to issue such a notice is fatal to the assessment order and cannot be condoned by Section 292BB.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance related to bad debts, following the Supreme Court's ruling that it is sufficient for a debt to be written off as irrecoverable in the assessee's accounts. The appeal was allowed.

The tribunal noted that the assessee no longer wished to pursue the appeal. The departmental representative raised no objection to this request.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passing an ex-parte order without disposing of the appeal on merits is not permissible. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in disallowing the agricultural income claim as the assessee had provided lease deeds and other relevant documents. Regarding interest expenditure, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) made an estimated disallowance without clear findings of diversion or non-genuine loans, and directed its deletion.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO's own remand report accepted the genuineness and creditworthiness of the impugned share application/premium. The Tribunal found the Revenue's appeal not maintainable in such circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) made mistakes in figures and did not adjudicate all grounds. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to produce any evidence of capital expenditure incurred for improvement of the land. Therefore, the claim for cost of improvement was rejected, and the addition made by the AO was upheld.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one of the appeals, finding it was due to improper legal advice. While affirming the CIT's power to revise the assessment due to the AO's lack of inquiry, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the issues with fresh opportunities for the assessee.