ITAT Kolkata Judgments — May 2022

The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were not followed as the assessee was not given adequate time to present their case. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the assessee should be given an opportunity to produce their books of account before the AO. The AO is then to decide the issue afresh after considering the produced documents.

The Tribunal held that since the contributions were deposited before the due date of filing the return, and the relevant Explanation to Section 43B was not applicable retrospectively, the disallowance was not justified. The assessee's appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed without application of mind, containing contradictory information about the shares traded. The lower authorities' orders lacked specific discussion of the assessee's actual transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding unexplained share investments, finding no infirmity. For the second appeal, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's reconciliation statement and restricted the addition based on admitted unexplained amounts.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding unexplained share investments, finding no infirmity. For the second appeal, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's reconciliation statement and restricted the addition based on admitted unexplained amounts.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not justified as the diary entries were in the name of the assessee's father, not the assessee. Furthermore, there was no evidence to show the assessee made the alleged payments through cheque, and the assessee's bank statements did not support such transactions.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to verify the evidence of sales, including the cash book, to be furnished by the assessee and decide the issue afresh.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was bad in law due to the lack of competent jurisdiction in issuing the notice under section 143(2) and the absence of proper territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was incorrect as the payments were made before the due date for filing the return of income. The Explanation-5 to Section 43B, introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable to the assessment year under consideration.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to present its claim before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the ITO was invalid as it was issued by an officer without the requisite jurisdiction as per CBDT instructions. Consequently, the entire assessment proceedings were deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year 2019-20, the disallowance was incorrect. The Explanation-5 to Section 43B, which was introduced later, was not applicable. Payments made before the return filing due date are allowable.

The Tribunal found it necessary to re-examine the TDS mismatch and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh determination after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of the Section 80P deduction without providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee was erroneous. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that for assessment years prior to 2021-22, if employees' contributions to ESI and PF are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, the deduction is allowable. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and lacked merit discussion. To ensure justice, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted it back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not properly consider the assessee's explanation for the cash withdrawal and subsequent deposit. The explanation of withdrawing cash for a land deal, even if it didn't finalize, was not sufficiently disproven by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) is prospective and applicable from AY 2021-22 onwards. Therefore, for AY 2018-19, the assessee's claim for deduction is allowable if the remittance was made before the due date of filing the return of income.

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. Therefore, it applies from AY 2021-22 onwards and not to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is prospective. Therefore, for assessment years prior to 2021-22, payments made before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) are allowable as deductions.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was not defective and that the assessee was provided with ample opportunities. The penalty under Section 272A(1)(C) was also upheld as the assessee failed to comply with a summons issued under Section 131(1).

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking revisionary jurisdiction as the transaction was a development agreement, not a purchase. The Assessing Officer had examined the issue and a possible view was taken, making the assessment order neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective, allowing the deduction for PF contributions paid before the return filing due date. The GST issue was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is prospective. Therefore, for assessment years prior to 2021-22, payments made before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) are allowable as deductions.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was not defective and that the assessee was provided with ample opportunities. The penalty under Section 272A(1)(C) was also upheld as the assessee failed to comply with a summons issued under Section 131(1).

The Tribunal held that interest claimed as an expense in the P&L account but not paid before the due date is disallowable under Section 43B. However, interest transferred to pre-operative expenses and not claimed as an expense was not subject to disallowance under Section 43B.

The Tribunal partly upheld the PCIT's order, finding that the AO had not adequately examined all unsecured loans and the discrepancy in gross profit calculation. However, the Tribunal reversed the PCIT's findings on the genuineness of sundry creditors and the source of capital addition, stating these were sufficiently examined by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B is prospective. Therefore, for assessment years prior to 2021-22, payments made before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) are allowable as deductions.

The tribunal held that an ex-parte dismissal without deciding on merits is not permissible in law. The issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) without adjudicating on merits violated principles of natural justice and was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's income must be computed as per Rule 8, and a mistake in filing the return should not disentitle them from the benefit. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were invalid and void ab initio due to a defective notice. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal became infructuous.

The Tribunal held that if employees' contributions to ESI and PF are paid before the due date of filing the return of income, the assessee is eligible to claim the deduction. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) without adjudicating on merits violated principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that for third parties, including tax authorities, the transfer of immovable property is considered complete only upon registration of the deed, not on the date of execution, irrespective of Sections 47 or 75 of the Registration Act, 1908. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that a defective title negated the transfer, stating that the registered sale deed in his favour had not been set aside by any court, and he had transferred whatever rights he possessed. However, the Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly considered the impact of the title dispute on the sale price. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to conduct an inquiry into the facts surrounding the title dispute, its effect on the sale price, and to decide the issue afresh. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition as the share premium was raised in earlier assessment years and not in the year under consideration. The addition was therefore made in the wrong assessment year, rendering the assessment order bad in law.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the ALP adjustment, finding the CUP method appropriate based on the assessee's data. It also confirmed the deletion of additions under Section 69A and for commission/brokerage, agreeing that the conditions for invoking these sections were not met.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the ALP adjustment, finding the CUP method appropriate based on the assessee's data. It also confirmed the deletion of additions under Section 69A and for commission/brokerage, agreeing that the conditions for invoking these sections were not met.

The Tribunal noted that no assessment order had been framed consequent to the impugned order. Therefore, the appeal was rendered redundant. The assessee chose not to pursue the appeal in this situation.

The Tribunal held that the non-submission of Form 10CCB along with the return is a procedural irregularity and not fatal to the claim, especially when the form was submitted before the adjustment was made. The disallowance was not a prima facie adjustment permissible under Section 143(1).

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the matter was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowances for periphery development expenses and unexplained investment, finding that these were legitimate business expenditures or due to clerical errors. The Tribunal also rejected the Revenue's grounds related to the suppression of net profit and consultancy charges.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made due enquiries and applied his mind to the issue of deduction under Section 80IC. The Tribunal further noted that a coordinate bench of the ITAT had previously decided a similar issue in favour of the assessee for an earlier assessment year.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal also set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restricted the disallowance of commission expenses to 50% of the claim, following a previous year's order. Similarly, the disallowance on carriage outward expenses was also restricted to 50%. The addition for bogus purchases was deleted as it was based on differences in opening balances, not current year purchases.

The Tribunal restricted the disallowance of commission expenses to 50% of the claim, following a previous year's order. Similarly, the disallowance on carriage outward expenses was also restricted to 50%. The addition for bogus purchases was deleted as it was based on differences in opening balances, not current year purchases.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits. Following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, the Tribunal deleted the ad-hoc disallowance of security expenses.

The Tribunal held that the levy of fee under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable as Section 200A did not have the enabling provision for such adjustments. The decision of the Karnataka High Court was followed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted a detailed inquiry, examined relevant documents, and applied his mind before accepting the genuineness of the expenditure. The PCIT did not provide further evidence to demonstrate the AO's error.