ITAT Kolkata Judgments — November 2021

The Tribunal followed a previous decision in a similar case, holding that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding the deductibility of employee contributions to PF/ESI paid before the due date of filing the return, is prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, such payments are allowable deductions.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, is prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, payments made before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) are allowable deductions.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding the deductibility of employees' contribution to PF/ESI paid before the due date of filing the return, is prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, payments made before the due date of filing the return are allowable.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, clarifying Section 43B's non-applicability to Section 36(1)(va) was prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, payments made before the due date of filing the return of income were allowable.

The Tribunal followed a previous decision, holding that the amendment by Finance Act, 2021, regarding the deductibility of employee contributions to PF/ESI paid before the return filing due date, is prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, such payments are allowable.

The Tribunal followed a previous decision in a similar case, holding that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding the deductibility of employee contributions to PF/ESI paid before the due date of filing the return, is prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, payments made before the due date of filing the return are allowable.

The Tribunal rectified the errors in its previous order. The correct PAN of the assessee is AABCG0227B, and the assessment year for ITA No. 2423/KOL/2018 is 2012-2013, not 2011-2012.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was due to the assessee having complied with the requirements of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal rectified the errors in its previous order. The PAN of the assessee was corrected to AABCG0227B, and the assessment year for ITA No. 2423/KOL/2018 was corrected to 2012-2013.

The Tribunal followed a previous decision and held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding the deductibility of employee contributions to PF/ESI paid before the due date of filing the return, is prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year in question, such payments are allowable as deductions.

The Tribunal held that filing a rectification application before the Pr. CIT against the rejection of a rectification application by the AO is not the correct procedure. The proper recourse would have been to file an appeal before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal allowed scholar expenses and club charges as business expenses, following its own previous decisions. It also allowed the employees' contribution to PF/ESI based on High Court and Supreme Court precedents regarding the retrospective nature of amendments.

The Tribunal allowed scholar expenses and club charges as business expenses, following its own previous decisions. It also allowed the employees' contribution to PF/ESI based on High Court and Supreme Court precedents regarding the retrospective nature of amendments.

The Tribunal allowed scholar expenses and club charges as business expenses, following its own previous decisions. It also allowed the employees' contribution to PF/ESI based on High Court and Supreme Court precedents regarding the retrospective nature of amendments.

The Tribunal held that Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) is applicable prospectively from AY 2015-16, thus allowing the deduction for CSR expenses actually incurred. The issue of the provision for CSR expenses was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to issue a draft assessment order under Section 144C rendered the original assessment order a nullity. Consequently, the Pr. CIT could not exercise revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 over a void order.

The Tribunal held that Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) is applicable prospectively from AY 2015-16, thus allowing the deduction for CSR expenses actually incurred. The issue of the provision for CSR expenses was restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for re-adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case and evidence on merits, adhering to the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal, considering the welfare nature of tax legislation and the lack of objection from the Revenue, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case and evidence on merits, adhering to the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn/not pressed due to low tax effect. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous and also dismissed.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to produce relevant evidence and represent their case on merits before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-compliance due to the serious illness and subsequent death of its director. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

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 noted the assessee's request not to prosecute the appeal and, with no objection from the Revenue, acceded to the request. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the critical illness of the Managing Director's wife, supported by medical evidence. Therefore, the penalty imposed was deleted.

The tribunal granted the permission sought by the directors to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that education cess and surcharge are allowable as business expenses. For the refund of dividend distribution tax, the matter was restored to the AO for examination.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69C was unsustainable as it was not an unexplained expenditure incurred in the current year. The addition under Section 68 was also not sustainable as the credit was an opening balance carried forward from previous years, not pertaining to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice must be specific regarding the charge under Section 271(1)(c) for the penalty to be sustainable. Since the notice was vague, the entire penalty proceeding was vitiated.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal and that the Revenue did not object. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the second revision under Section 263 on the same issue was not sustainable as the AO had already conducted due inquiries and applied their mind. The revisionary authority cannot direct further investigation simply because they feel other aspects could be examined or the issue could be viewed from a different angle.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not make an effective representation during the revisionary proceedings. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Pr. CIT to allow the assessee to substantiate their case and explain why revision was not required.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to demonstrate any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The inconsistent and unproven reasons for the delay indicated a casual and negligent attitude on the part of the assessee.

The tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal regarding the Section 14A disallowance, finding the assessee's suo-moto disallowance to be in accordance with law. The tribunal also allowed the revenue's ground regarding the Section 43B(b) disallowance for statistical purposes, directing the AO to verify and delete it.

The Tribunal held that the facts of this case, involving a claimed system error in an online return, were different from the Goetze (India) Ltd. case. The Tribunal also noted that the Goetze decision does not limit the powers of the Tribunal under Section 254.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction as the assessment was limited scrutiny and the PCIT did not deal with the merits of the TDS details provided. The Tribunal found the assessment order to be neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal found discrepancies in the dates related to the assessment order and the filing of the appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for adjudication on merits.