ITAT Kolkata Judgments — January 2022

The Tribunal held that the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, were not retrospective and therefore not applicable to the assessment years in question. The assessee's deposit before the return filing due date was considered valid.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the deposit was made before the due date of filing the return of income. The Explanation to Section 43B, inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable to the assessment years under appeal.

The Tribunal held that the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021, were not retrospective and thus not applicable to the assessment years under consideration. The disallowance was ordered to be deleted based on jurisdictional High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, the disallowance was incorrect as the employee contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return. The Explanation-5 to Section 43B, which would have made the disallowance applicable, was not yet in force.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO. The assessee was granted an opportunity to produce evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness of the creditor, and genuineness of the loan transaction.

The Tribunal held that an appeal against the assessment order lies before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and not the ITAT, as the latter is a second appellate authority. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, the Explanation-5 to Section 43B was not applicable. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF and ESI, if made before the filing of the return, is allowable.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the deposit was made before the due date of filing the return of income. The Explanation to Section 43B, inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable to the assessment years under appeal.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, is not retrospective and therefore not applicable to the assessment year under consideration. The delayed deposit of employee's contribution, made before the filing of the return, is allowable as a deduction.

The tribunal restored the issue of commission payment disallowance to the AO for verification of the assessee's claim that the recipients had already offered the income and paid tax. The addition of Rs. 8,32,380/- as a fictitious sundry creditor was deleted as it was received in the preceding year and adjusted against sales in the succeeding year.

The Tribunal held that the second Pr. CIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction for the second time without fulfilling the conditions precedent under Section 263. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted the necessary inquiries as directed by the first revisional order.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction for the second time without satisfying the pre-conditions. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had conducted inquiries as directed in the first revisional order.

The tribunal noted that the appeals were against actions taken under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act. The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw both appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient own funds (capital balance) to make the investments yielding exempt income. Therefore, the presumption is that own funds were utilized, and no disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was warranted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was handicapped from presenting their case due to not being aware of the hearing date. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s ex parte order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that dismissing the appeal solely on the technicality of physical filing was incorrect. It also noted that the assessee did not receive a proper opportunity before the AO, as supported by Supreme Court precedent.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction for delayed employee PF/ESI contributions, donations/subscriptions, and interest on late TDS, citing jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court precedents. For transportation expenses, a lump sum disallowance was deemed reasonable due to the inability to produce all vouchers.

The Tribunal noted that the facts were identical to a previous case where the assessee was allowed to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file afresh against the appropriate party, and the time consumed was not to be considered for limitation. Following this precedent, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the current appeal.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that passing an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee violates the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The tribunal, considering the Supreme Court's decision on COVID-19 related limitations, treated the appeal as within the limitation period. Subsequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal held that since the reopening was done after four years from the end of the assessment year and the original assessment was under Section 143(3), the AO was required to state that income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. As this condition was not met, the AO lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment.