ITAT Kolkata Judgments — March 2022

The Tribunal found the amount to be small and self-explanatory, considering the assessee had declared a substantial income. They were satisfied that such an amount could be accumulated from past savings or kept at home.

The Tribunal held that the Rs. 40 lakhs could not be considered 'undisclosed income' as per Section 271AAA as it was not discovered from specific materials during the search. Therefore, penalty on this amount was not sustainable.

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

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, for assessment years prior to 2021-22, the jurisdictional High Court's view that belated payments before the return filing due date are allowable, holds good.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding employees' contribution to PF and ESI, is prospective. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, the assessees are entitled to deduction if the payments were made before the due date of filing the return of income.

The Tribunal held that the nature of nursery expenditure depends on whether it's for re-plantation or expansion, and this aspect was not examined by the AO. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the disallowance should be limited to Rs. 3,682/- after considering the assessee's suo motu disallowance.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had erroneously calculated the interest income and that the actual interest income was less. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was bad in law because the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings beyond the permissible time limit and relied on a previous Tribunal ruling where similar reopenings were quashed. Therefore, the assessment orders were annulled.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, inserting an Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, for assessment years prior to 2021-22, the assessee's claim is allowable if the contribution was made before the due date of filing the return of income.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding employees' contribution to PF and ESI, is prospective. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, the assessees are entitled to deduction if the payments were made before the due date of filing the return of income.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, regarding employees' contribution to PF and ESI, is prospective. Therefore, for the assessment years in question, the assessees are entitled to deduction if the payments were made before the due date of filing the return of income.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessments was bad in law because the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings beyond the permissible time limit and relied on a previous Tribunal ruling where similar reopenings were quashed. Therefore, the assessment orders were annulled.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, inserting an Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, is prospective and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, it is not applicable to the assessment year under appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in giving a suo motu direction to exclude depreciation from gross receipts for calculating the 15% accumulation limit, as this was not an issue before him. The Supreme Court's decision allows for depreciation to be considered in computing the real income of charitable trusts.

The Tribunal held that if the AO's case is that the funds did not belong to the assessee but were routed through them, the addition under Section 68 as unexplained income is not justified. The disallowance of interest expenses was also found unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were between sister concerns, operated on current accounts, and were due to business exigencies. Therefore, they did not fall under the ambit of Section 269T.

The Tribunal held that an assessment framed without supplying the reasons for reopening to the assessee is invalid. The failure to provide the reasons deprived the assessee of the opportunity to file objections, rendering the assessment null and void.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on the electricity transfer rate based on previous rulings. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding Section 14A disallowance, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s partial allowance following a Special Bench decision.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer wrongly assumed jurisdiction to reopen the assessment as the reasons provided were vague, lacked tangible material, and were based on suspicion rather than a reasonable belief of escaped income. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on the electricity transfer rate based on previous rulings. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding Section 14A disallowance, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s partial allowance following a Special Bench decision.

The Tribunal found that the peak cash calculation by the CIT(A) was incorrect. It allowed the deletion of Rs. 5,55,703/- from the addition of Rs. 6,55,130/-, considering relief granted for unsecured loans and accepted cash sales.

The Tribunal held that the sales tax remission granted as a subsidy for setting up industrial units in backward areas to promote employment is a capital receipt. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions and Supreme Court judgments, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the Mark-to-Market loss on account of foreign exchange rate fluctuation on CER units cannot be treated as contingent. Since gains from CER valuation were taxed in an earlier year, the loss arising from a decrease in valuation due to exchange rate fluctuation in the subsequent year should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that for non-delivery based transactions in shares and derivatives, the turnover should be calculated on a net basis (sales minus purchases). Following precedent, it was found that the assessee's turnover did not exceed the audit limit, thus the penalty was not leviable.

The Tribunal found that the tax effect in both appeals was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the entire maturity amount received from the life insurance policy is liable to be treated as capital gains. However, the cost of acquisition for computing capital gains should be the premium paid minus 20% of the sum assured.

The Tribunal noted a discrepancy where the AO accepted the returned income after enquiry but assessed a higher figure. The key issue was whether the return filed under Section 148 showed Rs. 1,09,210/- or Rs. 5,07,400/-.

The Tribunal held that club expenses incurred for business promotion and entertaining guests are allowable. It also held that employee contributions to PF & ESI paid before the due date of filing the return are deductible, as the relevant amendment is prospective.

The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to provide the reasons for reopening the assessment to the assessee before passing the reassessment order, despite a request, is a jurisdictional defect. This violates the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not make an estimation without rejecting the books of account under Section 145. The Tribunal also noted that sales figures were not disturbed and that purchases could not be rejected based on third-party statements not tested by cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as per their request. The Respondent's DR had no objection to this request.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2013-14, the PCIT's action was not justified as the AO had properly verified the certificates for non-deduction of TDS. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal found that payments were made in AY 2013-14, and the assessee's action was in line with Section 194C, thus the PCIT's revision was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made based on survey findings without rejecting the assessee's books of account and pointing out specific defects. The additions were made on an estimated basis without rejecting the books.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to discharge his duty as an investigator by not conducting a proper inquiry into the alleged bogus purchases. Therefore, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Pr. CIT) had the jurisdiction to revise the assessment order.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Since the AO had not made any additions in the subsequent assessment, the appeals became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2013-14, the PCIT's action in revising the assessment order regarding non-deduction of TDS was not justified as the AO had verified the Section 197 certificates. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal found that the AO's action in allowing expenses was correct as payments were made in an earlier year and the assessee had obtained valid Section 197 certificates.

The Tribunal held that contributions made to an LIC Group Gratuity Scheme are deductible business expenses, as the assessee had no control over the fund, satisfying the conditions of Section 36(1)(v). The disallowance by the lower authorities was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the second PCIT's action of invoking revisional jurisdiction was not justified as the second AO had conducted inquiries as directed. The Tribunal also noted that the proviso to Section 68, which deals with share premium, was prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the issue of shares at a premium is a commercial decision and not income. The proviso to Section 68, introduced later, was prospective. The AO's failure to conduct proper inquiries led to the PCIT's revisional action being justified.

The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10AA should be allowed before setting off brought forward losses, as it is a statutory right and should not be denied on technicalities. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned based on substantial justice.

The Tribunal held that for Assessment Year 2019-2020, the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, which made such disallowances mandatory, was prospective. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for the deduction as payments were made before the due date of filing the return.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals. Since the AO had not made any additions in the subsequent assessment, the appeals became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to ESI and PF are paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), the assessee is eligible for deduction. This decision was based on jurisdictional High Court rulings and the prospective nature of Finance Act, 2021 amendments.

The Tribunal held that the issue of the assessee's status was not an issue in dispute before the AO and that the proper course was to approach the AO for any change in status. Regarding business losses, the Tribunal noted that accepted losses are entitled to all benefits under the Act, and the carry-forward is examined in subsequent assessment years.

The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to ESI and PF are paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), the assessee is eligible for deduction. This decision was based on jurisdictional High Court rulings and the prospective nature of Finance Act, 2021 amendments.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, finding that the assessee had successfully proved the identity, creditworthiness of investors, and genuineness of the share capital transactions. The assessee provided necessary documentation and investor confirmations before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to ESI and PF are paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), the assessee is eligible for deduction. This decision was based on jurisdictional High Court rulings and the prospective nature of Finance Act, 2021 amendments.

The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to ESI and PF are paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), the assessee is eligible for deduction. This decision was based on jurisdictional High Court rulings and the prospective nature of Finance Act, 2021 amendments.

The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to ESI and PF are paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), the assessee is eligible for deduction. This decision was based on jurisdictional High Court rulings and the prospective nature of Finance Act, 2021 amendments.

The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to ESI and PF are paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1), the assessee is eligible for deduction. This decision was based on jurisdictional High Court rulings and the prospective nature of Finance Act, 2021 amendments.