ITAT Kolkata Judgments — April 2021

The Tribunal held that the process of blending butane and propane into LPG, using sophisticated machinery, results in a new commercial product and is therefore a manufacturing activity. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for additional depreciation.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that it could be restored if the 'Vivad Se Viswas Scheme' application was not accepted. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this arrangement.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's exercise of revisionary jurisdiction was not sustainable as the AO had accepted the genuineness of the long-term capital gains from share sales after due verification. The Tribunal reversed the PCIT's order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by providing documentary evidence, including account payee cheques and donor declarations. The authorities below were not justified in treating the gifts as unexplained cash credit based solely on doubts and suspicions.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. Commissioner's revision was not sustainable as the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary inquiries and accepted the genuineness of the share transactions. The Tribunal relied on jurisdictional High Court decisions supporting the assessee's position.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 cannot be made based on bogus figures in a balance sheet when no actual cash or credit was received, and especially when no books of account are maintained. The matter regarding Section 69 was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law as it was passed by an Assessing Officer who lacked jurisdiction and did not issue a valid notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by default or consent and that a lack of jurisdiction renders proceedings void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the process of blending butane and propane into LPG, using sophisticated machinery, results in a new commercial product and is therefore a manufacturing activity. Consequently, the assessee is eligible for additional depreciation.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that ad-hoc disallowances made without specific evidence of unverifiable elements are not sustainable. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in M/s. Ravi Marketing Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal deleted the disallowances for both claim charges and repairs and maintenance.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to move for recalling the order if the scheme proposal was not accepted.

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

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

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

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that there was no point in keeping it pending given the assessee's participation in 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 granted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn after the assessee complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The tribunal held that if the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3, the appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn and stands dismissed. If the proposal was not accepted, the assessee can apply for recalling the dismissal order.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn after the assessee complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The tribunal held that if the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3, the appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn and stands dismissed. If the proposal was not accepted, the assessee can apply for recalling the dismissal order.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The tribunal held that if the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3, the appeal would be deemed to have been withdrawn and dismissed. The assessee retains the liberty to move for recalling the order if the proposal is not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reopening of the assessment under Section 147 was invalid as it was based on a 'reason to suspect' rather than a 'reason to believe' and lacked independent application of mind. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The tribunal held that if the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3, the appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn and stands dismissed. If Form No. 3 was not accepted, the assessee can apply for recalling the dismissal order.

The tribunal noted that if the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3, the appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn and stands dismissed. If the proposal was not accepted, the assessee can apply for recalling the dismissal order.

The Tribunal held that the loan was not a gratuitous advance but given on interest, thus not falling under Section 2(22)(e), and deleted the addition. The housing loan interest issue was restored to the AO for verification, and car-related disallowances were restricted.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. This was permitted because the assessee had opted to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.

The tribunal treated the assessee's appeal as dismissed in terms of the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 scheme. This is contingent on the assessee receiving Form No. 3, which would deem the appeal withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3, the appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn and stands dismissed. If the proposal was not accepted, the assessee can apply for recalling the dismissal order.

The Tribunal noted that if the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3, the appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn and dismissed. If the proposal was not accepted, the assessee can apply for recalling the order.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3, the appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn and stands dismissed. The assessee can apply for recalling the order if the proposal is not accepted.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3, the appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn and dismissed. If Form No. 3 has not been received, the assessee can apply for recalling the dismissal order.

The Tribunal noted that if the assessee has received Form No. 3 under the scheme, the appeal is deemed withdrawn and dismissed. If the proposal was not accepted, the assessee can apply for recalling the order.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The tribunal decided that if the assessee has opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and received Form No. 3, the appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn and stands dismissed. If the proposal was not accepted, the assessee can apply for recalling the dismissal order.

The tribunal treated the assessee's appeal as dismissed as withdrawn, in line with the provisions of the Vivad se Vishwas Act. This dismissal is contingent on the assessee's successful settlement under the scheme.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. This was based on the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding violation of natural justice. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after providing a sufficient opportunity to produce evidence.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's decision to settle the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.

The Tribunal found a violation of natural justice as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to exclude the dividend income of Rs. 2,46,352/- from the total income. This is because dividend income is not taxable in view of Section 10(34) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Instruction No. 3/2016 did not apply to the assessee's case as it was not selected for scrutiny on transfer pricing risk parameters. Furthermore, Section 92BA(i), which covered such transactions, had been omitted from the Act prior to the Pr. CIT's order.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the loss on earnest money and the commission payment, finding no infirmity in the order. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection regarding the taxability of capital gains, stating that the issue required investigation into fresh facts not on record.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 43B, holding it not applicable. Ad-hoc disallowances for unsubstantiated expenses were upheld due to the assessee's failure to produce evidence. The claim for deduction of education cess was allowed, following High Court precedents. The addition of notional interest was deleted, as notional interest cannot be taxed.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) by following previous decisions. It also deleted the disallowance of jute loss due to lack of evidence from the AO and CIT(A). The addition for notional interest income was also deleted, citing High Court precedent.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the difference in facilitation charges was partly explained and deleted the addition confirmed by the CIT(A). It also held that the reimbursement of expenses to Nuovo Pignone was not a prior period expense and deleted the disallowance. The classification of interest income as business income was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's assessment, completed within the parameters of limited scrutiny and not found erroneous by the CIT(A), could not be revised under Section 263. The revision order was quashed.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee availing the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.