ITAT Kolkata Judgments — July 2022

The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of apportioning common expenses, which was previously accepted by the Tribunal, should be followed. It also held that income from the sale of scrap generated from manufacturing activity is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB, following various High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that corporate guarantees are international transactions subject to transfer pricing regulations. It directed that a guarantee commission of 0.35% be charged and apportioned based on the effective period of the guarantee.

The Tribunal held that corporate guarantees constitute international transactions subject to transfer pricing regulations. It directed that a guarantee commission of 0.35% be applied, apportioned based on the effective period of the guarantee.

The Tribunal held that corporate guarantees are international transactions subject to transfer pricing regulations. It directed that a guarantee commission of 0.35% be charged and apportioned based on the effective period of the guarantee.

The Tribunal held that corporate guarantees are international transactions subject to transfer pricing regulations. It directed that a guarantee commission of 0.35% be charged and apportioned based on the effective period of the guarantee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's method of apportioning common expenses, which was previously accepted by the Tribunal, should be followed. It also held that income from the sale of scrap generated from manufacturing activity is eligible for deduction under Section 80IB, following various High Court decisions.

The Tribunal confirmed the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to produce necessary bills/vouchers for sales and purchases despite repeated opportunities. Consequently, the AO's estimation of income was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the AO's discretion to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC(1) is not mandatory, as indicated by the word 'may'. Given the AO's reasoning for the ad-hoc addition, it was within his wisdom not to initiate penalty under Section 271AAC(1).

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had considered the derivative loss adjustment after due verification and that there is no specific bar in the Income Tax Act against setting off derivative loss against business income. Therefore, the revision order was not justified.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in deleting additions where loan confirmations were received and amounts matched. The disallowance of interest and business loss was also confirmed as per the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal confirmed the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to produce necessary bills/vouchers for sales and purchases despite repeated opportunities. Consequently, the AO's estimation of income was upheld.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities had not provided specific instances to demonstrate that the services received were not related to the assessee's business. Following precedents, the Tribunal allowed the management charges as business expenditure.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and the assessee's claim regarding arrear rent needed verification. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay due to lack of cogent reasons. Furthermore, the issue was covered by a High Court decision affirming additions for bogus long-term capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- was made on mere surmises and conjectures without cogent reasons. The explanation of the assessee regarding savings and cash in hand could not be rejected solely based on assumptions.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the land was purchased as stock-in-trade for the assessee's business. Merely because the land could not be developed does not change its nature from stock-in-trade to an investment.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in respect of bogus long-term capital gains were affirmed by the Calcutta High Court. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in respect of bogus long-term capital gains were affirmed by the Calcutta High Court. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in respect of bogus long-term capital gains were affirmed by the Calcutta High Court. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act in respect of bogus long-term capital gains were affirmed by the Calcutta High Court. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and did not decide the issues on merits. The interest of justice would be served by allowing the assessee an opportunity to present its case.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and received the necessary forms. As the scheme was accepted, the appeal was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal as their grievance had been resolved. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that if employees' contribution to PF & ESI is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, it is eligible for deduction. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, which made such payments disallowable if not deposited within the statutory due dates, was held to be prospective.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 72,500/- on account of share trading. The assessee failed to provide any details or calculations regarding profit or loss from share transactions to the AO, CIT(A), or the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law because the notice under Section 148 was issued in the name of a deceased assessee. This was based on a previous decision of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for AY 2011-12.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) should be restricted to the amount of Rs. 4,00,563/- as made by the assessee, as it was computed considering only investments yielding non-taxable income. The disallowance of legal and professional fees was upheld as it was a capital expenditure related to property acquisition.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the notices. However, it restricted the penalty to Rs. 10,000, considering only the first default, as the subsequent defaults were for the same reason.

The Tribunal held that the CIT's order under Section 263 was unsustainable as it was passed without applying his mind to the material on record. The assessee had provided sufficient details regarding the utilization of corpus donations for charitable objects.

The Tribunal held that the share of loss from the partnership firm should not be added back for MAT computation, relying on a coordinate bench decision. Regarding the long-term capital loss, the Tribunal found that off-market transactions, where STT is not paid, do not fall under Section 10(38) and thus the loss is eligible for carry forward and set off.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the COVID-19 pandemic period exclusion and the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order in violation of natural justice and statutory provisions, hence the order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of PF contribution was incorrect as the payment was made before the due date of filing the return and the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021 was prospective. For the second issue, the Tribunal directed the AO to examine if the amount was already added back by the assessee to avoid double taxation.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground and held that the order passed by the CIT(E) was invalid and deemed to have never been issued because it failed to mention the DIN as per CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. Consequently, the grounds relating to the merits of the case were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal granted the permission to withdraw the appeal as sought by the Director of the assessee-company. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute and paid taxes. Although it was for the Revenue to withdraw its appeals, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals filed by the Revenue.

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

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the dispute was resolved under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme. Since the assessee had paid the taxes, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment orders were quashed and additions deleted, the foundation for imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was extinguished. Therefore, the penalty was rightly deleted by the CIT(Appeals).

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to verify if the payees had included the payments in their income and paid taxes. If confirmed, no disallowance would be made.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's plea of having no connection with the credit entry and not claiming the TDS should have been verified by the AO. Since the plea was raised before the appellate authority, it deserved consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the best judgment assessment as the assessee was provided with sufficient opportunities to appear. The additions made on account of suppressed turnover and undisclosed interest income were also confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as the Assessing Officer had already applied his mind to the issue of Section 14A disallowance during the original assessment, and no fresh information indicated escaped income. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the entire income appearing in Form 26AS should not be assessed in the hands of the assessee as a portion was shared with another entity as per the MOU. Only the assessee's share of profit should be taxed.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment orders were quashed and additions deleted, the foundation for imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was extinguished. Therefore, the penalty was rightly deleted by the CIT(Appeals).