ITAT Kolkata Judgments — January 2021

The tribunal corrected a typographical error in the case title of the appeal. The Bench designation was amended from 'B' to 'A'.

The Tribunal followed a precedent where a similar addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was deleted. The AO had not properly considered the valuation methods and the assessee's valuation report.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was incorrect in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 5 months to enable the assessee to avail the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 194C(6) and 194C(7) are independent. Since the payees furnished their PANs, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not permissible even if Section 194C(7) was violated.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, allowing them to approach the Tribunal for restoration if issues arise with the Vivad Se Vishwas certificate.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and received the necessary clearance. Consequently, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn by the assessee.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that the scheme election made the appeal redundant. The order was passed with a caveat that the assessee could seek recall if the scheme was not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking revisional jurisdiction as the AO was bound by CBDT instructions to confine inquiries to CASS reasons. Since the issue was outside the limited scrutiny scope, the AO's omission was not erroneous, making the PCIT's action invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to explain or reconcile the discrepancies. Therefore, for the interest of justice, the matter should be remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity of being heard by the AO and the CIT(A), violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had proved the identity, creditworthiness of the shareholders, and genuineness of the transaction. It further relied on previous judgments stating that share premium alone cannot be added as income.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) ought not to have passed an ex-parte order without going into the merits of the case. The tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with a direction to provide an opportunity to the assessee and decide the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal with a condition. The appeal would be restored if the assessee's application under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was rejected.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The withdrawal was based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a condition that they would be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' was rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, with a condition that they would be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' was rejected.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity of being heard, as summons were not demonstrably served and the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. However, it was stipulated that the appeals would be restored to the ITAT's file if the authorities did not approve the assessees' applications under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. However, it was stipulated that the appeals would be restored to the ITAT's file if the authorities did not approve the assessees' applications under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants. The onus then shifted to the Assessing Officer (AO) to disprove the documents furnished by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the AO had not conducted any investigation or gathered evidence to disprove the materials placed before him. The addition was made merely based on inferences drawn from circumstances and an investigation report, without establishing a link between the assessee and alleged hawala operators. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to consider the extensive documentation provided by the assessee, including certificates of incorporation, MOA/AOA, PAN details, IT Return acknowledgments, bank statements, share application forms, RTGS payment details, share allotment letters, and audited accounts of the share applicants. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the addition could not be sustained merely on conjectures and surmises. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that no addition was warranted under Section 68 of the Act, and consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. The Tribunal also noted that making additions in the hands of the assessee company when similar additions were made in the hands of share allottee companies would amount to double addition.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. However, it was stipulated that the appeals would be restored to the ITAT's file if the authorities did not approve the assessees' applications under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that a coordinate bench had already ruled in favor of the assessee for the subsequent assessment year on the same issue. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision was found to be in line with established precedent.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee has sufficient own funds to cover interest-free advances, the presumption is that such advances were made from own funds, negating disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii). It also held that no disallowance under Section 14A is required if no exempt income was earned.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. However, it was stipulated that the appeals would be restored to the ITAT's file if the authorities did not approve the assessees' applications under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'.

The Tribunal found that the hearing notices were not served on the assessee. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. However, it was stipulated that the appeals would be restored to the ITAT's file if the authorities did not approve the assessees' applications under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'.

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals as withdrawn with the condition that they would be restored if the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' applications were not approved by the authorities.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. However, it was stipulated that the appeals would be restored to the ITAT's file if the authorities did not approve the assessees' applications under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without affording the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard violated the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. However, it was stipulated that the appeals would be restored to the ITAT's file if the authorities did not approve the assessees' applications under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'.

The Tribunal held that the enhanced monetary limits for filing appeals by the revenue, as per CBDT circulars, are applicable to pending appeals. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. However, it imposed a condition that the appeals would be restored if the authorities did not approve the assessees' applications under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. However, it was stipulated that the appeals would be restored to the ITAT's file if the authorities did not approve the assessees' applications under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'.

The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals as withdrawn. However, it was stipulated that the appeals would be restored to the ITAT's file if the authorities did not approve the assessees' applications under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and had received the necessary form. Consequently, the assessee was allowed to withdraw the appeal.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and decided that there was no point in keeping the appeal pending. Therefore, the assessee was allowed to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. However, it stipulated that the appeals would be restored if the assessees' applications under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' were not approved by the authorities.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication due to a violation of the principle of natural justice at the assessment stage. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. However, it stipulated that the appeals would be restored if the assessees' applications under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' were not approved by the authorities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it held that the appeal was not maintainable in view of CBDT circular No. 17/2019, as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was opted for. The assessee can seek recall of the order if the scheme is not accepted.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, taking into consideration the assessee's opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the issuance of Form 3 by the Department.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as they were opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to apply for recalling the order if the scheme proposal was not accepted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and Form 3 was issued. Therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeals pending.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than Rs. 50 lacs, which is below the threshold stipulated by CBDT circular No. 17/2019.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals, considering their decision to opt for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. This was based on the assessees' participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the issuance of Form 3 by the Department.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and Form 3 was issued. Therefore, there was no point in keeping the appeal pending.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees to withdraw their appeals. This was based on the assessees' participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the issuance of Form 3 by the Department.