ITAT Kolkata Judgments — May 2021

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made under Section 68, finding that the assessee had provided all necessary documents to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions under Section 2(22)(e) based on the jurisdictional High Court's decision regarding interest-bearing loans.

The Tribunal noted that the disallowance had no revenue implication for the current year as it was adjusted against brought forward losses. The assessee then requested to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal found a violation of natural justice as the assessee was not aware of the hearing date. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)'s file.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reassessment order was null and void because a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was not issued. Consequently, the PCIT's order under Section 263, which sought to revise a non-existent order, was also quashed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order lacked proper reasoning and compliance with statutory requirements. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee was not eligible for exemption under Section 54EC as the investment in bonds was made beyond the six-month period from the date of property transfer.

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 granted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. This was based on the assessee having complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, stating there was no point in keeping it pending. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration if the scheme offer was not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable. Since the assessee had already declared the commodity profit and paid taxes, there was no basis for a revision to add it again, which would amount to double addition. The AO had taken a possible view, and the Pr. CIT failed to demonstrate that the AO's order was erroneous.

The Tribunal allowed the claim for delayed ESIC payment, holding it should be allowed as it was paid before the return filing due date. It also deleted the addition for unsecured loans, finding the assessee had proved the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition for unexplained cash deposits, deeming it a double addition.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

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.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the assessment order. It held that the AO lacked jurisdiction as the transfer of the case was not done in accordance with Section 127 of the Act, making the assessment order bad in law.

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

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred on sponsoring the management trainee's education abroad is a business expenditure. It reasoned that booking expenditure under a wrong head does not warrant disallowance if the expenditure is genuinely for business purposes and the trainee has subsequently served the company.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee before dismissing the appeal ex-parte and that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with statutory requirements.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the market value should be the rate at which electricity is supplied by State Electricity Boards to industrial customers. Sales under PPAs are not considered uncontrolled conditions for determining market value.

The Tribunal held that payments made to directors as bonus and commission, pursuant to agreements and within prescribed legal limits, are allowable. The disallowance was based on a general observation that agreements are generally worked, which the Tribunal found to be an invalid ground.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the monetary limit for appeals set by the CBDT. Following CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, the appeal was treated as withdrawn or not pressed.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. This was due to the assessee's compliance with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.