ITAT Kolkata Judgments — July 2021

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer cannot entertain such a claim without a revised return, appellate authorities like the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have the power to admit new claims. The CIT(A) rightly allowed the claim, considering the consistent practice and the fact that the payment was actually made.

The Tribunal held that since the provision for bad and doubtful debts was an actual write-off and the corresponding asset was reduced, it did not attract the provisions of Section 115JB. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was confirmed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT's request for documents at the fag-end of the process, without granting sufficient time for compliance, made the order bad. Therefore, the order was set aside to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity.

The Tribunal noted that a mismatch in 26AS can only be a starting point for inquiry and not a standalone basis for addition. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the AO for verification of the increased labour expenses.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request 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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn after the assessee complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.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 while the assessee was liable to deduct TDS on hire charges, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) would not apply if the payee (NCC Limited) had already offered the income to tax. The matter was remanded for verification of this claim.

The Tribunal granted the permission sought by the assessee's Director to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to establish that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found that the AO had made an enquiry and allowed the deduction under Section 80G, which was a plausible view based on the facts and relevant case law.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not made sufficient inquiries into the issues raised by the Pr. CIT, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the Pr. CIT had the jurisdiction to invoke Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was factually incorrect in stating that the donations were from students as fees. It also noted that the provision for gratuity, based on actuarial valuation, should be considered an application of income. Therefore, the appeal regarding the provision for gratuity was allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal had set aside the CIT(A)'s enhancement order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the CIT(A) was cancelled as its foundation no longer existed.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn in light of the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal without giving the assessee a proper and sufficient opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT passed an ex-parte order without giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT was set aside.

The Tribunal held that Explanation-5 to Section 43B, introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, is not retrospective and therefore not applicable to the assessment year in question. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal allowed the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the AO passed the assessment order in undue haste, without allowing reasonable time for creditors to respond and without confronting the assessee with the non-response. This violated the principles of natural justice.

The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) due to lack of proper opportunity. The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide it after giving the assessee a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross-objection filed by the assessee have become infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT notification, though issued late, validated the project's eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IA(4)(iii). Relying on previous tribunal and High Court decisions, the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction was confirmed.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. As there was no objection from the Revenue, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee had availed the "Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020" and therefore requested to withdraw the appeal. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal due to availing the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order, finding the AO's assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to lack of proper inquiry, particularly concerning Section 14A. The assessee's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that there was no point in keeping it pending since Form No. 3 had been issued. This withdrawal was subject to a caveat allowing the assessee to revive the appeal if the settlement under the scheme failed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard by either the Assessing Officer or the CIT(Appeals), violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not make sufficient inquiries before concluding the commodity transactions were bogus. The matter was restored to the AO for further investigation by summoning witnesses.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not allowed the carry forward of the long-term capital loss as alleged by the Principal CIT. The evidence showed that even the allowed portion of the loss was not carried forward, and the assessee had also filed an application for rectification and an appeal against the disallowance.

The Tribunal upheld the Pr. CIT's order, stating that the AO's failure to conduct necessary inquiries before allowing the deduction made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The issue of allowability of the deduction was left to be decided by the AO on merits.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that income earned from investing surplus funds in mutual funds is attributable to the banking/credit business of the cooperative society and thus eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2). The issue of TDS credit was restored to the Assessing Officer for the assessee to cure registration defects.

The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be served by allowing the assessee an opportunity to file their comments and objections against the remand report. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's contention regarding inter-account transfers needed verification. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for re-examination of the source of deposits in the savings bank account.

The Tribunal held that a condition precedent for invoking Section 201(1) is that the recipient must have failed to pay taxes. The onus is on the AO to demonstrate this, and the matter was remitted back for verification.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for verification of whether the debit was indeed a rectification of a mistaken entry from a prior year. If proven, no disallowance would be attracted.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reasons for reopening the assessment were insufficient. The AO merely stated the information received and concluded that deposits were cash credits without establishing a belief that income had escaped assessment.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to substantiate her claim. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with sufficient opportunity.

The Tribunal held that a condition precedent for invoking Section 201(1) is that the recipient must have failed to pay taxes. The onus is on the AO to demonstrate this, and the matter was remitted back for verification.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's order lacked discussion on the evidence provided by the assessee. Therefore, to ensure justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment with an opportunity for the assessee to present all necessary evidence.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. It also granted liberty to the assessee to move an application to recall the order if they faced difficulties in depositing the amount as per the scheme.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. This was based on the assessee's compliance with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

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

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

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

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

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