ITAT Kolkata Judgments — August 2021

The assessee has availed the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme 2020' and requested the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn. The tribunal accepted this request.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and Form 3 was issued.

The Tribunal held that interest income derived from bank deposits and loans given to another company is not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) as it is not derived from the industrial park business. However, regarding depreciation for book profit computation, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim.

The ITAT found that the principle of natural justice was not properly exercised by the CIT(A). Therefore, the ITAT remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the issue of loan processing fees required fresh inquiry by the AO to determine if the loan was for working capital. For Section 14A, the disallowance should be based on investments yielding exempt income. The unadjudicated ground on interest was remitted to the CIT(A).

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 to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn after the assessee complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the issue of loan processing fees required fresh inquiry by the AO to determine if the loan was for working capital. For Section 14A, the disallowance should be based on investments yielding exempt income. The unadjudicated ground on interest was remitted to the CIT(A).

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

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was duly complied with by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the benefit of the 1st Proviso to Section 50C is available to the assessee, relying on a Madras High Court decision that the amendment is retrospective. The AO was directed to re-compute capital gains using the fair market value as on the agreement to sale date and allow indexed cost of acquisition.

The Tribunal directed that the PAN of M/s. Srijan Cements Ltd. in the previous order be corrected from 'AABCP 8303 P' to 'AAMCS 1659 Q'. This was done to accurately reflect the appellant's correct PAN.

The Tribunal held that the AO ought to have referred the matter to the Valuation Officer (DVO) to ascertain the fair market value, even if the assessee did not explicitly request it. The AO's failure to do so, and the subsequent confirmation by the CIT(A), was erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the cash in hand was sufficiently explained by partner's capital contribution. The difference of Rs. 2,69,013/- was not relevant to the source of cash in hand and could not be treated as unexplained cash credit.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reasons for reopening were based on incorrect and changed facts, as the entry provider and the amount of escaped income differed from the initial reasons recorded. This invalidated the reopening jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was bad in law because the AO's reasons for reopening were fragile and lacked proper inquiry into the layering of funds. The Pr. CIT's revisionary order was also quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the AO's assessment order was barred by limitation and therefore null and void. Consequently, the subsequent order passed by the Principal CIT under Section 263 was also quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it lacked proper enquiry into the issues raised by the PCIT. Therefore, the PCIT's direction to frame the assessment afresh was confirmed.

The assessee intended to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT passed the impugned order without affording the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the PCIT for adjudication after granting a hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not provide a proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee before dismissing the appeal ex-parte. The appellate order also lacked the required written reasons and points of determination.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the AO's assessment order was barred by limitation and therefore null and void. Consequently, the subsequent order passed by the Principal CIT under Section 263 was also quashed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received Form No. 3. This withdrawal is subject to the assessee completing the scheme process.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn by the assessee. This decision was based on the assessee's intention to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer correctly rectified the apparent mistake in the tax computation form under Section 154, as the corrected income matched the originally determined income.

The Tribunal held that the PAN of the appellant, M/s. Dinesh Kumar Batter, HUF, was incorrectly mentioned in its previous order. The corrigendum rectifies this error, directing that the correct PAN 'AAFHD 6359 C' be used in place of the erroneous 'AACHC 8313 G'.

The Tribunal held that since the CIT's revisional order was set aside, the assessment order passed in its effect must also be cancelled. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiry into the currency derivative loss, as evidenced by the assessee's reply and submitted documents. Therefore, the PCIT's invocation of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 was based on an erroneous assumption of facts.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking revisional jurisdiction as the AO had indeed conducted inquiries and received substantiating documents regarding the share capital. The conditions for exercising revisional powers under Section 263 were not met.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that payments made before the due date of filing the return of income are deductible. The Tribunal also noted that similar claims were allowed in the assessee's own case for previous assessment years.

The Tribunal agreed with the revenue that once the CIT(A) found the Section 153C proceedings void, there was no need to decide the merits. The Tribunal upheld that no addition could be made under Section 153C without incriminating material unearthed during a search.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and remitted the tax. Therefore, there was no reason to keep the appeal pending.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271D is not sustainable when the loan transaction is between closely related persons like brothers and the genuineness of the transaction is not doubted. The Tribunal followed its own coordinate bench decisions on similar matters.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the legal issue raised by the assessee regarding the infirmity in the notice. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The withdrawal is subject to the assessee completing the scheme process and remitting the due tax.

The Tribunal directed that the name of the Respondent-Cross Objector in the original order be read as 'M/s. Chowringhee Residency Pvt. Ltd.' instead of the incorrect mention of 'M/s. Chowringhee Residency Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Shantinath Financial Services Ltd.'.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the addition to the extent of Rs. 16,50,203/- from the suspense account would amount to double taxation if already offered to tax in subsequent years, and remanded the issue to the AO for verification. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO to verify the assessee's claim of voluntarily disallowing expenses for earning exempt income before invoking Rule 8D.

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 to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's compliance with the Vivad Se Vishwas 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 granted the assessee's application for withdrawal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was bad in law because it was passed by an Assessing Officer who lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction, as indicated by the returned income being below Rs. 15 lacs. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the statutory notice under Section 143(2) was not issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file afresh. The time consumed in prosecuting the withdrawn appeal was to be excluded for limitation purposes, but the assessee would still need to explain any remaining delay.

The Tribunal recalled its earlier order in ITA No. 726/Kol/2019 as it was passed after the same appeal had already been disposed of in ITA No. 751/Kol/2019. Therefore, the present appeal (ITA No. 726/Kol/2019) was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that interest expenditure incurred till the date of commissioning of a capital asset must be capitalized. Post-commissioning interest, if related to the business, can be claimed as revenue expenditure. The AO's disallowance was based on an unscientific calculation.

The Tribunal held that the payments made to International Freight Forwarding Agents were for services rendered outside India and did not accrue or arise in India. Therefore, no TDS was required, and the disallowance was incorrect.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, with no findings on merits. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after proper notice.