ITAT Kolkata Judgments — February 2020

The Tribunal held that the six-month period for reinvestment under Section 54EC should be reckoned from the actual receipt of sale consideration. It further clarified that the amendments to Section 54EC restricting reinvestment amounts are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal upheld the addition on account of undisclosed sales from stock shortage, treating it as reasonable. However, the addition for cash shortage was deleted as it cannot be treated as income under the Act.

The Tribunal held that the AO's order could not be termed erroneous as an inquiry was conducted, and the assessee had provided reconciliations explaining the difference in interest income over two assessment years. Therefore, the jurisdictional condition for invoking Section 263 was absent.

The Tribunal held that donations received with specific written directions to form part of the corpus are to be treated as corpus donations and excluded from taxable income. However, interest earned on corpus donations is considered current year income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding leave encashment and Section 14A disallowances. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's cross-objections regarding the disallowance of educational cess.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment was unabated and not based on any incriminating material found during the search, the AO could not have made additions or disallowances related to capital gains/losses. Therefore, the PCIT erred in law and facts.

The Tribunal held that both the ESOP expenses and the exchange loss were covered by previous decisions in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that excise duty and interest subsidy refunds, in this case, were capital receipts and not revenue. Therefore, they should not be included in the computation of book profits under Section 115JB, upholding the Assessing Officer's original assessment.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities' action in interfering with the registered valuer's report of Rs. 90,284 per unit was not sustainable. The cost of acquisition should be deemed as the cost borne by the previous owner as per Section 49(1).

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that it was not confronted with the AO's information regarding the credit card payment. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing relevant details and an opportunity for explanation.

The tribunal did not condone the significant delay in filing the appeal. The reasons provided by the assessee were found to be untenable, and their conduct did not inspire confidence in the bona fides of the delay.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming revision jurisdiction. Since the assessment was unabated and not based on incriminating material from the search, the Assessing Officer could not have disallowed the capital gains/losses. The PCIT's revision order was reversed.

For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal restricted the addition to 5% of the actual difference in opening and closing balances, deeming the AO's original calculation erroneous. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal deleted the addition entirely, stating no prohibition exists for frequent deposits/withdrawals from a disclosed bank account without evidence of expenditure or other income sources.

The Tribunal held that since the genuineness of the expenses was not disputed and the assessee had not derived any business income, the expenditure should be treated as a business loss. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the loss.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding leave encashment and Section 14A disallowances. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's cross-objections regarding the disallowance of educational cess.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as it was based on a mere change of opinion without any new tangible material. Consequently, the assessment order passed under section 147/143(3) was cancelled.

The Tribunal found that assessing profit at 60% was excessive and not based on the assessee's business profile or past assessments. It directed that a profit rate of 7.5% of the sale amount would be just and proper.

The Tribunal held that club entrance fees are allowable as revenue expenditure and share issue expenses are eligible for Section 35D amortization. The disallowance under Section 36(1)(viii) was deleted, finding the assessee's method of expense apportionment fair. The issue of provision for fraud and dacoity was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and computation as per law. Both parties agreed that the assessee's grievance deserved to be re-examined.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that tax paid in the USA should be given credit or the foreign salary should be excluded from Indian income computation. The AO was directed to allow credit for tax paid in USA or exclude the salary earned in USA.

The Tribunal held that excise duty and interest subsidy refunds, in this case, were capital receipts and not revenue. Therefore, they should not be included in the computation of book profits under Section 115JB, upholding the Assessing Officer's original assessment.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of driver's salary and fuel expenses due to lack of evidence. However, it reduced the disallowance on business conference expenses and directed deletion of disallowance on flight booking expenses for employees.

For AY 2008-09, the Tribunal restricted the addition to 5% of the actual difference in opening and closing balances, deeming the AO's original calculation erroneous. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal deleted the addition entirely, stating no prohibition exists for frequent deposits/withdrawals from a disclosed bank account without evidence of expenditure or other income sources.

The Tribunal held that the six-month period for reinvestment under Section 54EC should be reckoned from the actual receipt of sale consideration. It further clarified that the amendments to Section 54EC restricting reinvestment amounts are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the six-month period for reinvestment under Section 54EC should be reckoned from the actual receipt of sale consideration. It further clarified that the amendments to Section 54EC restricting reinvestment amounts are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s ex parte order was passed without proper adjudication and that the adjournments sought by the assessee did not indicate dilatory tactics. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the six-month period for reinvestment under Section 54EC should be reckoned from the actual receipt of sale consideration. It further clarified that the amendments to Section 54EC restricting reinvestment amounts are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Act is not attracted when shares are acquired in lieu of exchange of shares (swapping of shares) and no cash consideration is involved. The addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the six-month period for reinvestment under Section 54EC should be reckoned from the actual receipt of sale consideration. It further clarified that the amendments to Section 54EC restricting reinvestment amounts are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding leave encashment and Section 14A disallowances. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's cross-objections regarding the disallowance of educational cess.

The Tribunal held that the six-month period for reinvestment under Section 54EC should be reckoned from the actual receipt of sale consideration. It further clarified that the amendments to Section 54EC restricting reinvestment amounts are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was not warranted as the shares were held as stock-in-trade by the banking company. Following its own prior decision and Supreme Court observations, the Tribunal upheld the deletion.

The Tribunal held that the six-month period for reinvestment under Section 54EC should be reckoned from the actual receipt of sale consideration. It further clarified that the amendments to Section 54EC restricting reinvestment amounts are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without proper adjudication on merits. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that the six-month period for reinvestment under Section 54EC should be reckoned from the actual receipt of sale consideration. It further clarified that the amendments to Section 54EC restricting reinvestment amounts are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of revision jurisdiction was justified. It clarified that depreciation on assets yielding house property income is not allowable, and the AO should frame the assessment accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the six-month period for reinvestment under Section 54EC should be reckoned from the actual receipt of sale consideration. It further clarified that the amendments to Section 54EC restricting reinvestment amounts are prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and conducted an inquiry, making a plausible decision. Therefore, the assessment order could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to revenue, and the revisionary action under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal admitted additional legal grounds regarding the validity of the reassessment notice but dismissed them as the assessee did not press them after inspecting records. Regarding the main issue, the Tribunal considered the principle of diversion of income by overriding title, citing various High Court decisions.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to violation of principles of natural justice. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund.

The Tribunal held that the AO was factually incorrect in stating that no explanation was provided earlier. The cash flow statement and explanations were submitted to the Investigation Wing. Since these advances were subsequently accounted for as sales, which were accepted by the AO, adding the same amount again would constitute double addition.

The Tribunal held that a plain reading of Section 214, as it existed for the relevant assessment year, mandates that interest on refund is to be calculated from the 1st day of April of the financial year. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the interest accordingly.

The ITAT restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, citing violation of natural justice. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minister Relief Fund.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of cold season expenses by the AO was not in accordance with law and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. It dismissed grounds related to liquidated damages, prior period expenses, maintenance of young tea bushes, and notional interest. The write-back of bad debt provision was held not to be taxable income.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of cold season expenses by the AO was not in accordance with law and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. It dismissed grounds related to liquidated damages, prior period expenses, maintenance of young tea bushes, and notional interest. The write-back of bad debt provision was held not to be taxable income.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not want to press the appeal and the revenue did not object. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal restricted the ad-hoc disallowance on certain expenses to 10% and directed a deduction for donations under Section 80G. The disallowance on employees' ESI contribution was upheld as it was paid before the return filing due date.

The Tribunal deleted the addition for transportation charges, finding that the assessee had provided bills, ledger, and bank statements to prove the transaction's bona fides. However, the addition for share application money was upheld as the assessee failed to furnish sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made by the TPO regarding royalty payments, finding them to be at arm's length. The Tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s allowance of depreciation at 60% on LAN cabling, treating it as a computer peripheral.