ITAT Kolkata Judgments — November 2019

The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A). The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to rectify the defects in the appeal despite sufficient opportunities. Consequently, the appeal was treated as defective and dismissed.

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

The Tribunal held that the land sold was agricultural land and thus not a capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the income from its sale was not taxable as capital gains, and Section 50C was not applicable.

The tribunal upheld the CIT's revisional jurisdiction, stating that the Assessing Officer's failure to conduct necessary inquiries regarding share capital/premium renders the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming revision jurisdiction. It noted that the issues raised by the PCIT were either already addressed in prior proceedings, explained by the assessee with supporting evidence, or not disputed by the revenue. Therefore, the assessment was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in restricting the disallowance to the profit element of unverifiable purchases, as the corresponding sales were not disputed. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's claim for net profit, stating that gross profit is the appropriate measure in such cases.

The Tribunal held that the AO had examined the bank accounts and turnover, and the assessee had provided explanations and documents. Therefore, the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue, and the PCIT's action under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the income admitted by the assessee was recorded in documents maintained in the normal course of business and therefore did not fall under the definition of 'undisclosed income' as per Section 271AAB. Consequently, the penalty was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the investment was made within the six-month period from the sale of the property, interpreting 'month' as a calendar month. It also noted that allowing exemption twice might be a rectifiable error under Section 154.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not provide a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and failed to comply with the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient enquiries into the taxability of 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 upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, finding it proper and fair. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the estimated net profit rate for M/s Leelanand Trading Co and accepted the declared profit for M/s Ganpati Enterprise, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal acknowledged the wife's credits as the source but noted the lack of prior submission to the AO. A lump sum addition of Rs. 1,00,000 was deemed to meet the ends of justice.

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

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in restricting the disallowance to the profit element of unverifiable purchases, as the corresponding sales were not disputed. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's claim for net profit, stating that gross profit is the appropriate measure in such cases.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in restricting the disallowance to the profit element of unverifiable purchases, as the corresponding sales were not disputed. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's claim for net profit, stating that gross profit is the appropriate measure in such cases.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in restricting the disallowance to the profit element of unverifiable purchases, as the corresponding sales were not disputed. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's claim for net profit, stating that gross profit is the appropriate measure in such cases.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee prima facie proved the source of investment, there was no clear indication of the time gap. Therefore, a partial addition was deemed appropriate to meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal held that the income admitted by the assessee was recorded in documents maintained in the normal course of business and therefore did not fall under the definition of 'undisclosed income' as per Section 271AAB. Consequently, the penalty was not leviable.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not dealt with the assessees' explanations provided to the Assessing Officer and had passed orders ex parte. Therefore, to meet the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all six cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not dealt with the assessees' explanations provided to the Assessing Officer and had passed orders ex parte. Therefore, to meet the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all six cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not dealt with the assessees' explanations provided to the Assessing Officer and had passed orders ex parte. Therefore, to meet the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all six cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not dealt with the assessees' explanations provided to the Assessing Officer and had passed orders ex parte. Therefore, to meet the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all six cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that neither the assessee fully proved the utilization of withdrawals nor the Revenue justified the addition. Therefore, a lumpsum of Rs. 50,000/- was deemed to meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not dealt with the assessees' explanations provided to the Assessing Officer and had passed orders ex parte. Therefore, to meet the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all six cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing two appeals and restored all six cases back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the cases afresh after providing three effective opportunities of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not establish a clear nexus between sales and deposits, and the Revenue did not fully rebut the sales figures. Therefore, the addition was restricted to a lump sum of ₹50,000/-.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A and Rule 8D cannot be applied if no exempt income is actually earned by the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance made was not sustainable.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's submission of past balance sheets showing sufficient cash balance and the interest of justice, decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to establish the availability of cash. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's plea of not having made any client code modification was not dealt with by the lower authorities. Therefore, the impugned addition was deleted.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee prima facie proved the source of investment, there was no clear indication of the time gap. Therefore, a partial addition was deemed appropriate to meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal found that neither the assessee could fully substantiate the loss-making transactions nor the revenue could justify its contradictory approach. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- was deemed appropriate to meet the ends of justice.

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

The Tribunal noted that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had rebutted the assessee's factual averments. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and assessment.

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

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient enquiry into the taxability of 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be applied in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s order was vitiated due to a violation of the principle of natural justice as the issues were not adjudicated on merits. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had complied with the revision directions to examine the genuineness and source of share capital through independent inquiries. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal, in accordance with the majority view, held that the Explanation to Section 73 does not differentiate between delivery-based and derivative transactions. Aggregation of share trading loss and profit from derivatives should be done before applying Explanation to Section 73.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a detailed adjudication as required. It also accepted the assessee's claim that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable in the absence of exempt income.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee's case on merits, thus violating the principle of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision and set aside the lower authorities' orders. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to decide in accordance with the final decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the M/s. Exide Industries Ltd. case.

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision and set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to await the final decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a related case.

The Tribunal held that the transaction between brothers for business exigencies and financial support constitutes a reasonable cause under Section 273B. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271D was deleted.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s order was vitiated due to a violation of the principle of natural justice as the issues were not adjudicated on merits. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not discuss the assessee's case on merits, thus violating the principle of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case.