ITAT Kolkata Judgments — October 2022

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was a non-speaking order and violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order was set aside and the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Swati Bajaj & Others. The Tribunal found that the assessees failed to prove the genuineness of the share transactions and the steep rise in share prices.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to provide any explanation or details regarding the source of the share capital and premium. The Tribunal considered the assessee a habitual defaulter.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present its case, as the previous order was ex parte.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without a valid foundation, as the AO did not make any addition based on the reasons recorded for reopening. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO was challenged.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations regarding the source of share capital and its genuineness. The addition made by the AO under Section 68 was confirmed.

The Tribunal restored all issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after considering the assessee's submissions and documents, providing adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) restricting disallowance to 30% is clarificatory and retrospective. Therefore, the 100% disallowance was restricted to 30%.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The assessee's appeal regarding education cess was dismissed. However, the issue of leave liability deduction was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to allow deduction for amounts actually paid.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The assessee's appeal regarding education cess was dismissed. However, the issue of leave liability deduction was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to allow deduction for amounts actually paid.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The assessee's appeal regarding education cess was dismissed. However, the issue of leave liability deduction was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to allow deduction for amounts actually paid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions. The lower authorities failed to conduct independent investigations and wrongly disregarded the submitted proofs.

The Tribunal held that the alleged LTCG from the sale of equity shares were bogus and not eligible for exemption under Section 10(38). The additions for commission expenditure were also confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the alleged LTCG from the sale of equity shares were bogus and not eligible for exemption under Section 10(38). The additions for commission expenditure were also confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the alleged LTCG from the sale of equity shares were bogus and not eligible for exemption under Section 10(38). The additions for commission expenditure were also confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the alleged LTCG from the sale of equity shares were bogus and not eligible for exemption under Section 10(38). The additions for commission expenditure were also confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the alleged LTCG from the sale of equity shares were bogus and not eligible for exemption under Section 10(38). The additions for commission expenditure were also confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the alleged LTCG from the sale of equity shares were bogus and not eligible for exemption under Section 10(38). The additions for commission expenditure were also confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the correction in long-term capital gain computation, and the AO had adequately examined the issue. It further noted that the Pr. CIT failed to demonstrate prejudice to the revenue and that the AO's actions were not erroneous.

The Tribunal held that since the funds originated from the repayment of loans given by the company and were transferred from its own bank account held under its old name, the addition made by the AO under Section 68 was unjustified. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient details regarding the source of the funds.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had examined the issue during scrutiny, and the assessee provided sufficient documentation to show no understatement of income. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principles of natural justice. The assessee was directed to appear and provide necessary documentation.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: 1. The delay of 14 days in filing the appeal was condoned, accepting the assessee's plea of ill health and delayed communication of the order. The Tribunal found plausible reasons for the delay. 2. The order passed by the learned CIT under Section 263 was not sustainable. The Tribunal held that for action under Section 263, twin conditions must be fulfilled: the order must be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The CIT failed to demonstrate how the assessment order was erroneous. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Delhi), stating that the CIT should not merely relegate the point of error to the AO but must record a categorical finding with valid reasons. The CIT did not conduct an independent inquiry to question the valuer's report used by the AO for the cost of acquisition. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had not claimed the expenditure of Rs. 53,52,501/- as an application of current year's income. The expenditure was correctly debited to the accumulated fund account, and the CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide details of interest debited and credited, and did not demonstrate net interest income. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, taking a justice-oriented approach. However, it dismissed the grounds of appeal, respectfully following the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.

The Tribunal held that the ALP determined in the APA should be applied to the international transactions of MSSF for the impugned assessment year, following a coordinate bench decision. Regarding the Forex loss, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for examination to determine if the loss pertained to revenue items.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was justified. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal found that the LTCG from penny stock transactions, with abnormal share price increases and poor financials, were bogus.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in invoking section 263 as the AO had conducted an inquiry and the Pr. CIT failed to demonstrate that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Pr. CIT cannot direct the AO to conduct further inquiries without establishing the error himself.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The assessee's appeal regarding education cess was dismissed. However, the issue of leave liability deduction was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to allow deduction for amounts actually paid.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to the delayed deposit of employee's contribution, following the Supreme Court's decision. However, it allowed the ground concerning the disallowance under Section 14A, directing the AO to recompute the disallowance based on the value of investments as per the balance sheet on the first and last day of the year, excluding revaluation increases.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Swati Bajaj & Others. The court held that the assessees failed to prove the genuineness of the share transactions and the steep rise in share prices.

The Tribunal allowed the disallowance of rent of Rs. 3,30,000/- and statutory audit fees of Rs. 3,42,000/-. It partly allowed the disallowance of business promotion expenses, confirming 25% of the sum. The disallowance of commission charges was found uncalled for and deleted.

The Tribunal held that the alleged LTCG from the sale of equity shares were bogus and not eligible for exemption under Section 10(38). The additions for commission expenditure were also confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals by wrongly assuming the assessee opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the issues on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of justice, restored the issues to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to provide all necessary evidence and was assured a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not issued by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee, rendering the notice invalid and the subsequent assessment proceedings void ab initio. Therefore, the assessment order was liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal held that procedural technicalities should not deny substantial justice. Following precedent, the delay in e-filing was condoned, and the CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness of investors, and genuineness of transactions. It found that the lower authorities had not properly considered these evidences. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that in cases of undisclosed sales, only the profit element should be taxed, not the entire sale value, following the Gujarat High Court's precedent. The addition was restricted to 10% of the undisclosed sales.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided lists of suppliers and recipients, and the AO had not brought any material to disprove the distribution of medicines. The denial by social organizations without providing an opportunity for cross-examination was also noted. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition. It noted that the credit entry was from an earlier financial year and the summons did not require production of directors of the shareholder company. The tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that the scheme of amalgamation, approved by the High Court, has statutory force and binds the tax authorities. Therefore, the accumulated losses of the amalgamating companies are deemed to be those of the amalgamated company and can be set off.

The Tribunal restored the issue of whether the compensation paid was a capital or revenue expenditure to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to treat rent from IBS towers as income from house property and allowed the write-off of business advances as a business loss.

The Tribunal held that the provision for leave encashment is now regulated by Section 43B(f) of the Income Tax Act, which links the deduction to the actual payment date. The assessee's claim for immediate deduction was therefore not allowable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT failed to analytically consider the assessee's submissions regarding the applicability of CBDT Instruction No. 3/2016. The Tribunal found that the conditions for mandatory reference to the TPO were not met, rendering the CIT's order unsustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) because the assessee failed to provide any evidence to counter the findings of the lower authorities regarding accommodation entries. The appeal was decided ex-parte due to the assessee's non-cooperation.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was contrary to the CBDT's circular on revised monetary limits for filing appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal concurred with the lower authorities that the funds were received from shell companies operating in an organized manner. Consequently, the share capital and premium were treated as unexplained cash credits.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly invoked Section 263 as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and that the transactions were properly disclosed and examined.