ITAT Kolkata Judgments — September 2022

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to appear and substantiate its claims at any stage of the proceedings, despite opportunities given. The Tribunal found no documentary evidence or submissions to support the assessee's grievance.

The Tribunal found that the ex-parte decision by the CIT(A) and the AO's additions without a show cause notice violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal allowed grounds related to intra-group services, advertisement expenses, rental expenses, and Section 14A disallowance, following co-ordinate bench decisions. Ground 4 was dismissed as redundant, and ground 9 was dismissed as covered against the assessee.

The Tribunal held that section 271AAB is applicable only to cases where a search was initiated under section 132 against the assessee themselves, not those assessed under section 153C. Therefore, the penalty was wrongly imposed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without providing an adequate opportunity for hearing and without adjudicating on all grounds raised by the assessee. The matter was therefore remanded back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the assessee's audited books of account without complying with the provisions of Section 145(3) and without pointing out specific defects. The estimation of income at 10.5% GP rate was found to be unsustainable and without basis.

The Tribunal held that the provision for excise duty was not allowed as a revenue expenditure. Since the duty was actually paid before the due date of filing the return, it was allowable under Section 43B, and there was no prejudice to the revenue. Therefore, the order of the Principal Commissioner was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that service tax collected by the assessee on behalf of the Central Government is a statutory levy and does not form part of the assessee's income. Therefore, it should not be included in the gross receipts for computing presumptive income under Section 44BBA.

The Tribunal held that the issue of penny stock transactions and bogus long-term capital gains is covered by the Calcutta High Court's decision. The High Court affirmed additions made under Section 68 for such gains.

The Tribunal held that section 271AAB is applicable only to cases where a search was initiated under section 132 against the assessee themselves, not those assessed under section 153C. Therefore, the penalty was wrongly imposed.

The Tribunal held that the issue of penny stock transactions and bogus long-term capital gains is covered by the Calcutta High Court's decision. The High Court affirmed additions made under Section 68 for such gains.

The Tribunal held that the issue of penny stock transactions and bogus long-term capital gains is covered by the Calcutta High Court's decision. The High Court affirmed additions made under Section 68 for such gains.

The Tribunal held that the issue of penny stock transactions and bogus long-term capital gains is covered by the Calcutta High Court's decision. The High Court affirmed additions made under Section 68 for such gains.

The Tribunal held that the issue of penny stock transactions and bogus long-term capital gains is covered by the Calcutta High Court's decision. The High Court affirmed additions made under Section 68 for such gains.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's written submissions. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had resolved the dispute under the Vivad Se Viswas Scheme and had been issued the final declaration form. Therefore, there was no need to keep the appeal pending.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide all issues afresh on merits after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and lacked merit-based discussion. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the impugned order was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the issues raised in the current appeal and cross-objection had already been resolved by a previous Tribunal order in a related case. Therefore, the present appeal and cross-objection were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and lacked merit discussion. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the impugned order was set aside and remitted back to the AO for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the services provided were project-specific and did not make available technical knowledge or skill to the assessee for independent future use, thus not fulfilling the conditions of Article 12(4) of the India-Singapore DTAA. Therefore, the payments were not to be treated as royalty or FTS.

The Tribunal held that the services provided were project-specific and did not make available technical knowledge or skill to the assessee for independent future use, thus not fulfilling the conditions of Article 12(4) of the India-Singapore DTAA. Therefore, the payments were not to be treated as royalty or FTS.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 was invalid because an appeal on the original assessment order was already pending before the CIT(A). The Tribunal quashed the order passed under Section 263.

The Tribunal noted that payments made before the due date of filing the return are allowable as per jurisdictional High Court rulings. The Principal CIT should have verified the facts with the Assessing Officer before invoking Section 263.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 244A should be granted up to the date of actual receipt of the refund. It also directed the AO to verify if the assessee's income was entirely covered by TDS to delete interest under Section 234C, and to provide details for other adjustments.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities. The assessee's failure to appear and provide necessary documentation led to the dismissal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 244A should be granted up to the date of actual receipt of the refund. It also directed the AO to verify if the assessee's income was entirely covered by TDS to delete interest under Section 234C, and to provide details for other adjustments.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 244A should be granted up to the date of actual receipt of the refund. It also directed the AO to verify if the assessee's income was entirely covered by TDS to delete interest under Section 234C, and to provide details for other adjustments.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 244A should be granted up to the date of actual receipt of the refund. It also directed the AO to verify if the assessee's income was entirely covered by TDS to delete interest under Section 234C, and to provide details for other adjustments.

The Tribunal held that interest under section 244A should be granted up to the date of actual receipt of the refund. It also directed the AO to delete interest under section 234C if the entire income was covered by TDS and to provide details for other adjustments.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case and evidence. The AO was directed to decide the issue afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request not to pursue the appeal and, with no objection from the revenue, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that as per the NCLT order under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, all liabilities and proceedings prior to the NCLT order stand extinguished. Following precedents, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that expenses for subscriptions/donations to local organizations for smooth business operations are allowable. It also held that interest on loans for a hotel project should be capitalized only until the project is ready for use, not beyond.

The CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions. The assessment order was quashed as it was made on a non-existent entity post-amalgamation. Even on merits, the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loans were established.

The Tribunal found that entertainment expenses were incurred in the regular course of business and directed an ad-hoc disallowance of 5% towards personal use. For discounts, the Tribunal held that the authorities below failed to justify the disallowance and set aside the addition.

The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. which held that deduction for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF cannot be claimed even if deposited before the due date of filing the return.

The Tribunal held that taxing hypothetical income is not justified when the principal amount is not recovered and litigation is ongoing. Only the actual income received, which in this case was the TDS amount, should be taxed.

The Tribunal held that differences in opening balances pertaining to earlier years cannot be added in the current assessment year. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition based on this principle and relevant case laws.