ITAT Kolkata Judgments — August 2020

The Tribunal held that Section 2(22)(e) is not attracted because the sister concern is not a shareholder of the assessee company, nor vice versa. Furthermore, the transactions were considered regular business transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. It found that periphery development expenses were for business welfare, exchange loss was not disputed by evidence, depreciation was correctly allowed as per High Court orders, and the iron ore shortage was due to reconciliation differences between the Balance Sheet and Form H1.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. It found that periphery development expenses were for business welfare, exchange loss was not disputed by evidence, depreciation was correctly allowed as per High Court orders, and the iron ore shortage was due to reconciliation differences between the Balance Sheet and Form H1.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, subject to restoration if the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme approval is not granted. The appeal was treated as dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the issue on which the appeal was filed was decided in favour of the assessee by the Assessing Officer (AO) while giving effect to the Pr. CIT's order. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. It found that periphery development expenses were for business welfare, exchange loss was not disputed by evidence, depreciation was correctly allowed as per High Court orders, and the iron ore shortage was due to reconciliation differences between the Balance Sheet and Form H1.

The Tribunal found that an ex-parte order was passed by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's inability to represent itself effectively. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that an ex-parte order was passed by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's inability to represent itself effectively. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that an ex-parte order was passed by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's inability to represent itself effectively. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to restoration if the assessee fails to avail the settlement under the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme" for technical reasons.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal noted that similar additions in the preceding year were also deleted by a co-ordinate bench.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere. It noted that similar issues in prior assessment years were decided in favor of the assessee, and the services were not stewardship in nature.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation, supported by documentary evidence including company books and audited balance sheets, was not disputed by the lower authorities. The lower authorities focused on the 'application' of cash rather than the 'source'.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was correctly made in AY 2013-14 as the default of not depositing the TDS occurred in FY 2012-13. The deduction would be allowed in the year the TDS is finally deposited.

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed was not sustainable in law because the notice issued under Section 274 did not specify the charges against which the penalty was sought. This defect rendered the penalty order bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the carry forward of MAT credit is an automatic process and not a debatable issue. While the AO cannot entertain claims not made in the return, appellate authorities can. The issue was restored to the AO for verification and allowance if found correct.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it was stipulated that the appeal would be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' was not approved by the authorities.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order for both issues. For the Section 43B(f) disallowance, the matter was remanded to the AO to decide in light of the Supreme Court's decision in the Exide Industries case. For the Section 80G deduction, the issue was also remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication after verifying the payment and encashment.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order was cryptic and lacked proper reasoning, failing to consider material facts regarding the quantum of liability. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the IPA incentive, under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2000, was for setting up a new unit in specified areas and thus constituted a capital receipt. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decision for the same assessee and AY 2010-11.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex parte and there was no clear indication of proper service of hearing notices. The assessee expressed willingness to produce the investors' directors. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-decide the issue of unexplained cash credit afresh, with the condition that the assessee must produce the investors/directors.

The Tribunal found some justification for disallowance due to unverifiable self-made debit vouchers. However, a blanket 10% disallowance was not supported. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance to a random amount of Rs. 5 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in disallowing the assessee's actually paid gratuity sum. The deduction for the paid gratuity is admissible under Section 43B(b) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that an ex-parte dismissal for non-prosecution is not permissible in law. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly adjudicate the issues on merits and there was no clear indication of proper service of hearing notices. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the UAPA covered the assessment year in question and that the revenue had not presented any adverse submissions to controvert the assessee's claim. Therefore, the Tribunal was convinced that the revenue was required to withdraw the appeal.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with a specific condition. The appeal would be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' is not approved by the authorities.

The Tribunal noted that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had properly considered the assessee's supportive evidence. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with the condition that the assessee must produce the directors of the investor entities.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to decide appeals on merits and that 'reason is the soul of the order'. The CIT(A) failed to provide reasons for confirming the AO's order and did not decide the grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal found that an ex-parte order was passed by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's inability to represent itself effectively. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal rectified the previous order by correcting the figures for the addition of IT service costs and corporate guarantee fees. The corrected amounts reflect the total additions including the arm's length price adjustments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, undertaken on a turnkey project basis for consideration from RBI, were commercial in nature and not charitable. Therefore, the claim for exemption under Section 11 was not admissible.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, undertaken on a turnkey project basis for consideration from RBI, were commercial in nature and not charitable. Therefore, the claim for exemption under Section 11 was not admissible.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the reassessment bad in law. This was due to the AO's failure to dispose of the assessee's objections and the lack of proper satisfaction recorded by the approving authorities.

The Tribunal held that consultancy charges for renovation and repair of machinery were revenue expenditure as they did not provide enduring benefit or a new advantage. It further held that Section 14A disallowance was not applicable as the assessee earned no exempt income and investments were made from own funds.

The Tribunal held that if an assessment is reopened on a specific issue, but no addition is made on that issue, then additions cannot be made on other unrelated issues. This principle was upheld based on various judicial pronouncements.

The Tribunal held that if an assessment is reopened on a specific issue, but no addition is made on that issue, then additions cannot be made on other unrelated issues. This principle was upheld based on various judicial pronouncements.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex parte order was bad for violation of natural justice as notices were likely not served due to a change in the assessee's address. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, while potentially related to education, were undertaken on a turnkey project basis for consideration from RBI, indicating a profit-oriented intent. Therefore, these activities fell under the proviso to Section 2(15) and were not charitable in nature for exemption purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals), stating that disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is not attracted when own funds exceed investments, and disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in recasting the export sale account by using an incorrect import purchase figure. It directed the AO to accept the assessee's re-casted export sale account showing a net profit of 21.5%.

The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The assessee was also instructed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal decided to allow the assessee an opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A) to ensure justice. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issue afresh after hearing the assessee and considering any evidence.

The Tribunal held that the issue of shares at a premium is a commercial decision and not income. It also noted that the proviso to Section 68 was prospective. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing documents and establishing the identity and genuineness of investors.

The Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's claim regarding the share capital and premium. The assessee was to be given an opportunity to present evidence.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given an opportunity to substantiate its case, and the presence of directors of investing companies and further evidence were to be considered.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation genuine. It held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without deciding on the merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the prescribed limit. It was open for the department to take recourse if the tax effect was found to be higher.