ITAT Kolkata Judgments — April 2022

The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest expenditure was warranted under Rule 8D(2)(ii) as investments were made from own funds. For Rule 8D(2)(iii), disallowance was restricted to investments yielding dividend, with a portion sustained.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, with a direction for the assessee to be vigilant and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had no further grievance as the de novo assessment was decided in their favor. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was considered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned from scheduled banks other than cooperative banks, and not from members, is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2). Expenditure incurred to earn such income can be claimed, but the assessee had already claimed significant expenditure against this interest income.

The Tribunal noted that a subsequent search and seizure operation covered the impugned assessment year. Considering this development and the pendency of a fresh assessment under Section 153A, the Tribunal decided to remit the case back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to consider both assessment orders and dispose of the appeals.

The Tribunal noted that a subsequent search and seizure operation covered the impugned assessment year. Considering this development and the pendency of a fresh assessment under Section 153A, the Tribunal decided to remit the case back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to consider both assessment orders and dispose of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot assume jurisdiction under Section 263 without conducting independent inquiries or establishing that the assessment order was erroneous. Setting aside the assessment to the AO for re-examination without proper grounds is not permissible.

The tribunal noted that the assessee's grievances had been resolved by a subsequent assessment order. Since the respondent had no objection, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that a subsequent search and seizure operation covered the impugned assessment year. Considering this development and the pendency of a fresh assessment under Section 153A, the Tribunal decided to remit the case back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to consider both assessment orders and dispose of the appeals.

The Tribunal held that derivative transactions, as per Section 43(5)(d) of the Act, are not to be deemed speculative transactions. Therefore, losses from derivative trading can be set off against other business income, confirming the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were invalid as they were based on mere verification and lacked solid evidence. Consequently, the subsequent order passed under Section 263 was also quashed.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted a thorough examination of the transaction and adopted a plausible view. It found that the Pr. CIT's proposed computation would result in a loss to the revenue, thus the AO's order was not prejudicial.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to reconsider the assessment after taking into account the assessee's audited accounts and providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to verify the assessee's contention that the payees had accounted for the payments in their income, thereby making Section 40(a)(ia) non-applicable.

The Tribunal held that Section 43B of the Income Tax Act applies only when an assessee claims a deduction for an expenditure. Since the assessee had not claimed the GST amount as an expenditure in its profit and loss account, the disallowance under Section 43B was not justified.

The Tribunal held that no fresh evidence was submitted before the CIT(A) and the decision was based on the same material presented to the AO. Therefore, there was no violation of Rule 46A.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds of appeal on merits, including those related to Section 68 and Section 14A, and therefore, the matter needed to be restored.

The Tribunal held that the default committed by the assessee was of a technical or venial nature. Relying on previous judgments, it was concluded that there was no requirement for the assessee to get accounts audited under Section 44AB as the turnover was below the prescribed limit.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing adequate opportunity of being heard. The matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeal and cross-objection, citing liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for substantial justice. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed, and the cross-objection by the assessee was partly allowed.

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 no fresh evidence was submitted before the CIT(A) and the decision was based on the same material presented to the AO. Therefore, there was no violation of Rule 46A.

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 the disallowance of a claim for exemption under Section 11(2) cannot be made as a prima facie adjustment during the processing of a return under Section 143(1). Such issues require adjudication by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition on share application money, finding that the assessee had proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. For the stock discrepancy, the Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order, reducing the addition to a smaller amount due to errors in the survey team's stock-taking.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred on the replacement of truck bodies, being routine wear and tear, is revenue in nature. Following the ratio of the Calcutta High Court, the expenditure should be allowed fully against the income of the assessee in the current year.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition on share application money, finding that the assessee had proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. For the stock discrepancy, the Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order, reducing the addition to a smaller amount due to errors in the survey team's stock-taking.

The Tribunal found that the PCIT invoked revisionary jurisdiction perfunctorily without appreciating the facts correctly. The issues raised were either wrong, not supported by assessment records, or too insignificant to justify the exercise of Section 263 powers.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B, is prospective in nature and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for the assessment year under consideration (2019-20), the deduction is allowable if the remittance was made before the due date of filing the return of income.

The Tribunal held that there is no provision under Section 10(23C) to condone delay in filing applications for approval. Therefore, the CIT(Exemption) rightly rejected the applications as time-barred.

The Tribunal held that there is no provision under Section 10(23C) to condone delay in filing applications for approval. Therefore, the CIT(Exemption) rightly rejected the applications as time-barred.

The Tribunal held that there is no provision under Section 10(23C) to condone delay in filing applications for approval. Therefore, the CIT(Exemption) rightly rejected the applications as time-barred.

The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to PF and ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, the assessee is eligible to claim a deduction. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective, and prior to it, the jurisdictional High Court's view favored the assessee.

The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to PF and ESI are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, the assessee is eligible to claim a deduction. The amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, was held to be prospective, and prior to it, the jurisdictional High Court's view favored the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee consistently treated income from sale of shares and mutual funds as business income, supported by ratios of sales to closing stock. Relying on Supreme Court judgments concerning cooperative societies and banks, the Tribunal ruled that Section 14A disallowances are not applicable to such entities.

The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the AO's order giving effect was silent and passed without hearing the assessee. The CIT(A) had correctly directed the AO to verify figures and allow the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CPC lacked the jurisdiction under section 143(1)(a) to make such an adjustment. The classification of income and the nature of services rendered were factual matters requiring scrutiny assessment, not a summary proceeding.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in not considering the subsequent assessment proceedings under Section 153A, which had already examined the issue of share capital and premium. The definition of 'record' under Section 263 includes all available records at the time of examination, including subsequent proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee consistently treated income from sale of shares and mutual funds as business income, supported by ratios of sales to closing stock. Relying on Supreme Court judgments concerning cooperative societies and banks, the Tribunal ruled that Section 14A disallowances are not applicable to such entities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee consistently treated income from sale of shares and mutual funds as business income, supported by ratios of sales to closing stock. Relying on Supreme Court judgments concerning cooperative societies and banks, the Tribunal ruled that Section 14A disallowances are not applicable to such entities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee consistently treated income from sale of shares and mutual funds as business income, supported by ratios of sales to closing stock. Relying on Supreme Court judgments concerning cooperative societies and banks, the Tribunal ruled that Section 14A disallowances are not applicable to such entities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee consistently treated income from sale of shares and mutual funds as business income, supported by ratios of sales to closing stock. Relying on Supreme Court judgments concerning cooperative societies and banks, the Tribunal ruled that Section 14A disallowances are not applicable to such entities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee consistently treated income from sale of shares and mutual funds as business income, supported by ratios of sales to closing stock. Relying on Supreme Court judgments concerning cooperative societies and banks, the Tribunal ruled that Section 14A disallowances are not applicable to such entities.

The Tribunal held that the site expenses paid in cash were sufficiently vouched and explained, especially considering the remote locations of the sites. It also held that the write-back of the gratuity and leave encashment liability was not taxable as the original expense was disallowed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had correctly allowed the set-off of business losses against short-term capital gains, as the leased assets were business assets. The PCIT's order was found to be without proper jurisdiction as the AO's order was not erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had acquired shares through a public offer and sold them on a recognized stock exchange, with STT paid, making the gains exempt under Section 10(38). The AO failed to provide any evidence of collusive transactions or make independent inquiries.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and paid the taxes. The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal, and the Revenue had no objection.