ITAT Kolkata Judgments — October 2020

The Tribunal held that the tax credit on account of MAT, as per Section 115JAA, should be allowed for computing interest under Section 234C. The matter was restored to the AO for verification and allowance of the claim.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. Since the Principal CIT's order under Section 263 was quashed by the ITAT, all consequential proceedings and assessments stemming from it were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the Industrial Promotion Assistance received by the assessee is a capital receipt and does not need to be reduced from the cost of assets for depreciation purposes, following its own prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that while it agreed with the Pr. CIT that the non-registration of the gift deed of immovable property falls foul of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, and consequently affects the transfer of the property under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, the legal effect of this would be that the gifted flat would disappear from the assessee's balance sheet, and there would be no increase in capital to the tune of Rs. 2.29 crores. This would cause no prejudice to the revenue. The Tribunal noted that during the assessment proceedings, the AO had enquired about the increase in the capital account due to the gift and the assessee had submitted all supporting documents, including the donor's source of funds. The Tribunal observed that the source of funds for the purchase of the flat by the donor, Ms. Ankita Kejriwal, was primarily from earlier assessment years (AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15), with only a small amount from the relevant AY 2015-16. Therefore, even if the AO found that the non-registration resulted in non-transfer, it would not prejudice the revenue. The Tribunal concluded that the second limb of the jurisdictional requirement, i.e., 'prejudicial to the revenue,' was not satisfied, and thus the Pr. CIT lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the AO's order under Section 263. The Tribunal quashed the impugned order of the Pr. CIT.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, considering the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee can recall the order if the scheme proposal is not accepted.

The Tribunal held that railway punitive charges for overloading are compensatory in nature and not an offence or prohibited by law. Therefore, they are allowable as a deduction.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek restoration if issues arise with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme certificate.

The Tribunal held that Section 50C cannot be applied to agricultural land as it is not a capital asset. Regarding the cash deposit, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that it was her husband's contribution from temple offerings, which was reflected in his return.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to the profit element of the disputed purchases, finding the 3% rate to be fair and reasonable. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the applicability of Section 40A(3).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to the profit element of the disputed purchases, finding the 3% rate to be fair and reasonable. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the applicability of Section 40A(3).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to the profit element of the disputed purchases, finding the 3% rate to be fair and reasonable. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the applicability of Section 40A(3).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to the profit element of the disputed purchases, finding the 3% rate to be fair and reasonable. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the applicability of Section 40A(3).

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument that disallowances under Section 14A read with Rule 8D are not to be included for the purpose of computing Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to the profit element of the disputed purchases, finding the 3% rate to be fair and reasonable. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the applicability of Section 40A(3).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to the profit element of the disputed purchases, finding the 3% rate to be fair and reasonable. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeals regarding the applicability of Section 40A(3) as there was no evidence of cash payments for grey market purchases.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide whether the order is erroneous. The PCIT must record a finding that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue before exercising jurisdiction under Section 263. The Tribunal found that the PCIT had not established the order to be erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was bad in law because the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer did not specify the grounds for levying the penalty as required by law. Additionally, no statement under Section 132(4) was recorded from the assessee.

The ITAT restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. This was subject to the assessee paying costs for non-appearance.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if no exempt income is actually earned.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was bad in law because the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer did not specify the grounds for levying the penalty, violating principles of natural justice. Additionally, no statement under Section 132(4) was recorded from the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer made no additions in the consequential order. Therefore, the assessee withdrew the appeal as it was considered an academic exercise.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid because it was framed without a mandatory Section 143(2) notice issued by the competent Assessing Officer. Therefore, the assessment was declared null and void.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following its own prior rulings and ITAT decisions in similar cases. It found that the provisions for wages were allowable as a crystallized liability and that the current liabilities were not fictitious.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's revisionary order under section 263 was bad in law. It reasoned that the Assessing Officer had made inquiries and accepted the assessee's explanation, and the Pr. CIT had not conducted independent verification.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with the three investor companies. The CIT(A) noted that these companies belonged to the same group, had common directors, and the investments were made through banking channels.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid because it failed to specify the exact charge against the assessee, following the ratio laid down by the Karnataka High Court. Consequently, the levy of penalty could not be sustained.

The ITAT restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. This was subject to the assessee paying costs for non-appearance.

The ITAT restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. This was subject to the assessee paying costs for non-appearance.

The ITAT restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. This was subject to the assessee paying costs for non-appearance.

The Tribunal held that administrative and establishment expenses are allowable as application of income for charitable purposes, relying on a jurisdictional High Court decision. It also directed the AO to allow accumulation of income at 15% of gross receipts, following a coordinate bench ruling.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decisions for similar issues in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision allowing the claim for loss on derivative trading.

The Tribunal noted that the quantity of goods purchased and sold was not disputed and the accounts were audited. Considering the assessee's disclosed GP rates and the fact that the revenue was not in appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, the Tribunal directed the AO to compute the GP at 2.5% for both assessees.

The tribunal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-objection as withdrawn. This dismissal is conditional, with the understanding that both will be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' is rejected.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing 30% depreciation on excavators, bull dozers, and wheel loaders. This was based on jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal decisions treating these as akin to 'Motor Lorries' for depreciation purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity as the CIT(A) had followed a previous Tribunal order in the assessee's own case for the same assessment year. This order had held that Section 115JB was not applicable to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the donation was made when the institution's approval under Section 35(1)(ii) was in force. The subsequent withdrawal of approval does not affect the assessee's vested right to claim the deduction. Adverse material used against the assessee was not confronted, and no opportunity for cross-examination was provided.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding Section 115JB and remitted it to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The enhancement made by the CIT(A) regarding Section 68 was also set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision due to lack of proper opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities, including the CIT(A), failed to deal with the detailed evidence provided by the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The tribunal held that an ex-parte dismissal for non-prosecution is not permissible in law. The principles of natural justice were violated as the appeal was not disposed of on merits.

The tribunal found that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) was not permissible as it did not dispose of the appeal on merits. The matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.

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

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following its own previous decisions for similar issues in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision allowing the claim for loss on derivative trading.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following previous orders and Supreme Court judgments. It was held that the assessee, having invested in and controlled the assets for business purposes, was to be treated as the owner for depreciation purposes.

The Tribunal held that reopening of assessment beyond four years is permissible only if there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Since the Assessing Officer failed to establish such failure, the reopening was deemed bad in law.

The Tribunal held that reimbursement of expenses by clients, on which TDS was erroneously deducted, does not constitute income for the assessee. They confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that a mismatch in Form 26AS alone cannot be the basis for an addition, especially when reconciliation and supporting documents were provided.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order did not comply with the requirements of Section 250(6) of the IT Act. Therefore, the ex-parte dismissal order was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the quantity of goods purchased and sold was not disputed and the accounts were audited. Considering the assessee's disclosed GP rates and the fact that the revenue was not in appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, the Tribunal directed the AO to compute the GP at 2.5% for both assessees.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention of non-receipt of notices. Consequently, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.