ITAT Kolkata Judgments — September 2021

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to produce directors and participate in the inquiry to prove the genuineness of share subscribers.

The Tribunal held that for an unabated assessment year, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is unearthed during the search. Since the AO correctly followed this principle, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the lender companies had furnished their PAN, registered addresses, and provided documents like income-tax acknowledgments, audited accounts, and bank statements. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had also deducted TDS on interest payments, and the AO had not conducted independent inquiries into the creditworthiness of the lenders.

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 withdrawal was subject to the caveat that if the scheme proposal was not accepted, the assessee could apply for recalling the order.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, subject to the condition that if the scheme proposal is not accepted, the assessee can apply for recalling the order. The withdrawal does not prevent the revenue from accepting the scheme.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal as the respondent had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal after noting that the assessee had filed declarations under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and received relevant forms.

The Tribunal held that expenses and interest directly related to projects under construction should be capitalized and claimed upon project completion, not as revenue expenditure in the current year. It also found that Section 14A disallowance was not justified due to sufficient interest-free funds available with the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to issue a draft assessment order under Section 144C, when a transfer pricing adjustment was made, rendered the assessment order void and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the PCIT's revisional order, which sought to interfere with a void order, was also a nullity.

The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had made inquiries into the specified issues. While the AO's order might have lacked detailed recording of these inquiries, it was not a case of 'lack of inquiry' but potentially 'inadequate inquiry', which does not empower the Principal CIT to invoke Section 263 without further investigation.

The Tribunal held that since the property was purchased by the company and reflected in its books as a fixed asset, and a Board Resolution confirmed the company's beneficial ownership, the payment by the company was not for the benefit of the assessee. Therefore, Section 2(22)(e) was not attracted.

The Tribunal held that the addition was based solely on the statement of a third party, which was recorded behind the assessee's back without an opportunity for cross-examination. Therefore, the basis for the addition was flawed, and the estimated profit addition was also deleted.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to refile if the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement was declined.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly appreciated the expenditure apportionment and that derivative losses are business losses, not speculative, based on previous rulings. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the disallowance for delayed PF contribution, following jurisdictional High Court decisions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the book results under Section 145(3) and estimate the GP rate at 40%. The difference in profit was rightly taxed as 'Income from other sources'.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the book results under Section 145(3) and estimate the GP rate at 40%. The difference in profit was rightly taxed as 'Income from other sources'.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the book results under Section 145(3) and estimate the GP rate at 40%. The difference in profit was rightly taxed as 'Income from other sources'.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to refile if the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement is declined later.

The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question. Therefore, the additions made were deleted.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry into the interest expenditure and the commercial expediency of the transactions. The PCIT's assumption of facts was found to be erroneous, and the AO's view was considered plausible and legally sustainable.

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

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to present their case and then decide the matter.

The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question. Therefore, the additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question. Therefore, the additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to present their case and then decide the matter.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) was not applicable as the agreement for sale was prior to the amendment. The AO's acceptance of the valuer's report was a plausible view and not erroneous, thus the PCIT's action under Section 263 was without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer took a possible view by adding only the profit element of the undisclosed turnover, as undisclosed turnover implies incurred expenses. Therefore, the Principal CIT could not substitute his own view under Section 263.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw both appeals. This was based on the assessee's successful enrollment in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition for undisclosed closing stock, accepting the assessee's explanation. It also upheld the partial disallowance for TDS, as only a specific portion of payments lacked TDS deduction.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee's successful enrollment in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw both appeals. This was based on the assessee's successful enrollment in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-compliance and set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment, including obtaining a valuation report from the DVO.

The Tribunal restored the issues of double addition of income from other sources, credit for advance tax, and restriction of disallowance on expenses related to tea business to the AO for verification. The issue regarding dividend distribution tax was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal has corrected the names of the representatives of the Revenue and the Assessee as per the corrigendum. The substantive decision of the original order remains unchanged.

The Tribunal has corrected the names of the representatives of the Revenue and the Assessee as per the corrigendum. The substantive decision of the original order remains unchanged.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity as the contributions were deposited before the due date for filing the return and the issue was covered by the jurisdictional High Court's judgment. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had violated principles of natural justice by not adjudicating the grounds of appeal and considering the assessee's submissions. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal noted a typographical error in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the interest amount and directed its correction. It restored the issue of netting interest income to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, following a previous order in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's assertion about the opening balance of investments was doubtful and remanded the issue of unexplained investment back to the AO for verification. Similarly, the disallowance under Section 14A was remanded for verification of exempt income.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order under Section 144 had merged into the subsequent order passed under Section 147. Since the additions made in the Section 147 assessment were deleted by the CIT(A) in a separate appeal, the current appeal against the earlier order became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to present its case due to the AO sending notices to an incorrect address. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question. Therefore, the additions made on account of delayed payment of employees' PF & ESI contributions, when remitted before filing the return, were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal rectified the error in its previous order, correcting the assessee's PAN from AFHPM9942B to AADFC2632F. This correction was made to ensure accuracy in the record.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh verification of the commodity transaction's genuineness. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that interest on delayed payment of municipal taxes is compensatory and allowable. It also restored the TDS credit issue to the AO for verification, as the CIT(A) should have verified it himself.

The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective and not applicable to the assessment years in question. Therefore, the additions made on account of delayed payment of employees' PF & ESI contributions, when remitted before filing the return, were directed to be deleted.