ITAT Kolkata Judgments — October 2021

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the deposit was made before the due date of filing the return and the Explanation-5 to Section 43B, which was introduced later, was not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the annual rental value of the Raichak property should be ₹60,000 for both assessment years, consistent with the earlier year's assessment. It also held that no addition was warranted for the Lake Road property as its rental value was already taxed in the hands of the assessee's son, preventing double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including a declaration from the donor and bank transfer details, to prove the genuineness of the gift. A gift deed is not mandatory for movable property.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law because it was passed by an Assessing Officer without jurisdiction. The notice issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction is null and void, and Section 292BB of the Act does not apply in such cases.

The Tribunal granted permission for the withdrawal of the appeal as the assessee had complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the annual rental value of the Raichak property should be ₹60,000 for both assessment years, consistent with the earlier year's assessment. It also held that no addition was warranted for the Lake Road property as its rental value was already taxed in the hands of the assessee's son, preventing double taxation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that discounts allowed to dealers, including conditional/post-sales discounts, were a normal business practice and deductible. The Tribunal also ruled that employee contributions to PF/ESI deposited before the due date of filing the return of income were deductible.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that discounts allowed to dealers, including conditional/post-sales discounts, were a normal business practice and deductible. The Tribunal also ruled that employee contributions to PF/ESI deposited before the due date of filing the return of income were deductible.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that discounts allowed to dealers, including conditional/post-sales discounts, were a normal business practice and deductible. The Tribunal also ruled that employee contributions to PF/ESI deposited before the due date of filing the return of income were deductible.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the deletion of rent expense disallowance. The CIT(A)'s finding that the rent was genuinely paid and used for business purposes was not controverted by the revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the books of account and estimate the gross profit rate, finding it reasonable based on the facts and previous years' profits. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the books of account and estimate the gross profit rate, finding it reasonable based on the facts and previous years' profits. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that investing surplus funds is an integral part of the banking and credit business of a cooperative society. Therefore, the interest earned on such investments is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2).

The assessee expressed a desire to withdraw the appeal due to opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the deletion of rent expense disallowance. The CIT(A)'s finding that the rent was genuinely paid and used for business purposes was not controverted by the revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the transfer pricing adjustment, finding that the CIT(A) had correctly accepted the assessee's method. The Tribunal also held that the government incentives received by the assessee were capital in nature and not taxable income.

The Tribunal held that the AO made the addition without any specific incriminating document or evidence against the assessee linking them to any bogus transaction. The addition was based on a generalized modus operandi without establishing a specific link to the assessee's transaction.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that discounts allowed to dealers, including conditional/post-sales discounts, were a normal business practice and deductible. The Tribunal also ruled that employee contributions to PF/ESI deposited before the due date of filing the return of income were deductible.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the books of account and estimate the gross profit rate, finding it reasonable based on the facts and previous years' profits. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

The ITAT held that the NCLT's order approving the resolution plan has overriding effect over the Income Tax Act, and all tax dues and pending proceedings for periods prior to the resolution applicant's control are extinguished. The appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for necessary action.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the deposit was made before the due date of filing the return and the Explanation-5 to Section 43B was not applicable to the assessment year in question. The decision of the jurisdictional Calcutta High Court was followed.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not provide a proper opportunity for the assessee to present its case. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Tin Box Company, the Tribunal restored the issues raised in grounds 1 to 7 to the AO for de novo consideration, directing the assessee to provide explanations and documents.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was within the period of limitation, acknowledging the Supreme Court's orders extending the limitation period due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Regarding the addition of ₹5,91,00,000/-, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share subscribers. The Tribunal noted that the previous AO was satisfied with the initial inquiries. The subsequent AO's insistence on the personal appearance of subscriber directors, especially after issuing summons by post close to the assessment order date, was considered unreasonable. The Tribunal observed that the AO did not point out any specific defects or discrepancies in the documents submitted by the assessee. Furthermore, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be a non-speaking order, as it failed to discuss the material facts or apply the cited case laws to the specific circumstances of the case. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the impugned additions. The Tribunal also noted that the case laws relied upon by the AO were not applicable as the assessee had furnished details and evidence, unlike in those cases where such details were not provided. The Tribunal concluded that the lower authorities lacked justification for making the additions.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision order was unsustainable as it was passed mechanically without applying his mind to the facts. The AO had conducted detailed inquiries and accepted the assessee's explanations, and the PCIT failed to point out any error in the AO's assessment.

The Tribunal partly allowed the department's appeal and dismissed the assessee's appeal. Specifically, the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and the premium on FCCB redemption were decided in favor of the assessee, while the bad debt claim was decided in favor of the department.

The Tribunal found that the show-cause notice was not served upon the assessee in the normal course. Therefore, the PCIT's order was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh decision, with an opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to object to the Valuation Officer's report. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently established the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers, who were either directors or close relatives of the directors. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was unjustified.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals regarding various expenses and interest on loans to subsidiaries, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances. The assessee's appeal concerning Section 14A was allowed for statistical purposes.

The tribunal allowed the deduction for educational cess, following High Court precedents that it is an allowable expenditure. However, the disallowance of the provision for leave encashment was upheld based on a Supreme Court decision.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the partial relief granted to the assessee. The decision was based on a coordinate bench's ruling in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no justification to interfere. The Tribunal agreed that the additions made under Section 68 were not sustainable based on the evidence presented by the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to the extent of tax-exempt dividend income earned by the assessee. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as no contrary decision was presented.

The tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding mandi fees but dismissed it on merits, holding that it was allowable only on actual payment basis under Section 43B. The tribunal also directed the AO to re-compute unabsorbed business loss and depreciation.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the contributions were paid before the due date of filing the return of income. The Explanation-5 to Section 43B, introduced in 2021, was not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified as the contribution was paid before the due date of filing the return. The Explanation-5 to Section 43B, introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were invalid because the show-cause notice issued under section 274 did not specify whether the assessee was guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing income. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the issuance of Form 3. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeals, noting that there was no point in keeping them pending. The assessee was granted liberty to move for recalling the order if the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme proposal was not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of cash deposits through a cash flow statement, linking withdrawals with subsequent re-deposits. The AO failed to provide any evidence to rebut the assessee's explanation or show the withdrawn cash was utilized elsewhere.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued beyond the six-month period prescribed by the proviso to Section 143(2) from the end of the financial year in which the return was filed. Therefore, the reassessment order was void.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment by the Assessing Officer (AO) was based on a wrong assumption of facts, as confirmed by the Pr. CIT's own findings. Consequently, the AO's reassessment order and the Pr. CIT's revisional order were deemed nullities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the assessment order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus under Section 68 to prove the genuineness of the share capital and premium received. The AO's addition was upheld as the subscribers were found to be shell companies with no substantial assets.

The Tribunal held that the AO's rectification order was based on an incorrect appreciation of facts, as the disallowed interest expenditure did not relate to the eligible Steel Unit-II. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s cancellation of the rectification order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the AO's view of not disallowing the amount was a plausible view, consistent with jurisdictional High Court decisions. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, was considered prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were invalid because the show-cause notice issued under Section 274 did not specifically state whether the penalty was for 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' or 'concealing particulars of income'.

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

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