ITAT Kolkata Judgments — November 2022

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the PCIT's order was void ab initio due to a violation of natural justice, as the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s finding was factually incorrect and erred in dismissing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored all issues to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the valuation report was based on incorrect information as the subsidiary companies were acquired after the valuation date. Therefore, the fair market value of shares was considered to be their face value, and the addition made by the AO was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was bad in law. This was because the reasons for revision were the same as those for reopening the assessment, and the AO had already conducted inquiries. The Tribunal found that the PCIT had not conducted independent verification and could not substitute his opinion for that of the AO.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as the assessee had disclosed all the facts in its return and profit and loss account. Merely making a claim that was not accepted by the AO did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transaction. The share applicants were group companies with sufficient net worth, and the funds were received through banking channels.

The Tribunal held that the frequency of transactions and holding period are not determinative factors. Since the revenue had accepted the assessee's treatment of similar income in earlier and subsequent years, the STCG should be treated as capital gain.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It restored all issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing that a speaking order be passed after considering the assessee's submissions and documents.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a DIN in the PCIT's order, as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019, renders the order invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Consequently, the revision order passed by the PCIT was quashed.

The Tribunal held that since the revisionary order under Section 263 was already quashed by a previous order of the Tribunal, the consequential assessment order and the present appeals filed by the Revenue have become infructuous.

The Tribunal held that since the revisionary order under Section 263 was already quashed by a previous order of the Tribunal, the consequential assessment order and the present appeals filed by the Revenue have become infructuous.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations or evidence regarding the source of share capital and premium, and also failed to comply with the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the AO to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the disposal of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a DIN in the body of the revision order, as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019, renders the order invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Mentioning the DIN on an accompanying intimation letter does not cure this defect.

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO under Section 68. The assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the cash credits, and consistently remained absent before the AO, CIT(A), and the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that since the revisionary order under Section 263 was already quashed by a previous order of the Tribunal, the consequential assessment order and the present appeals filed by the Revenue have become infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid as the original assessment had already examined the issues and the assessee had provided all requested information. Additions cannot be made solely on the ground that investors did not appear when evidence of transactions was filed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete both additions. The CIT(A) found that the sales to Pacific Jute Ltd were deemed exports and that the net increase in liabilities was explained by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that while gains on penny stocks are taxable, the assessee should be allowed to set off the short-term capital loss against the long-term capital gain. The net income from capital gains should be taxed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, holding that the delay was not attributable to the assessee due to issues with address and counsel's negligence. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the minor delay of 2 minutes and 7 seconds, caused by technical issues with the Income Tax Department's portal, should not penalize the assessee. The benefit of carrying forward the business loss was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient documentary evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions. The non-appearance of directors alone was not a sufficient ground for addition.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment after four years was invalid as the conditions under the first proviso to Section 147 were not satisfied. Specifically, there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, and the reopening was based on a change of opinion.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the issue with the address and the interest of justice. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was contrary to the Department's own policy decision regarding monetary limits for appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below failed to appreciate the facts correctly. The assessee's role as a banking correspondent and the immediate remittance of collected funds to the bank were established, indicating the deposits were not the assessee's income.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid as the original assessment had already examined the issues and the assessee had provided all requested information. Additions cannot be made solely on the ground that investors did not appear when evidence of transactions was filed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee appeared to be not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal. Considering the material on record, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the findings of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had duly reported the net amount as miscellaneous receipts in its P&L account and offered it for taxation. Considering the statutory requirement regarding refundable prices of empty bottles, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. For Section 68, it was held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition based on the remand report and High Court precedents. For Section 14A, the Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decision that the explanation to Section 14A is prospective, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B was due to a bonafide mistake and not willful. Following CBDT Circular No. 2/2020, the Tribunal condoned the delay and directed the AO to accept the audit report.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not adopt an unsustainable view in allowing the deduction under Section 80IC, as the export incentives were considered to have a direct nexus with the business. Therefore, the Pr. CIT erred in invoking revisionary powers.

The Tribunal held that for claiming deduction under Section 36(1)(va), the employees' contribution to PF and ESI must be deposited on or before the due date specified in the respective Acts. The Supreme Court ruling in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. was followed.

The Tribunal held that the mistake was apparent from the record and rectifiable under Section 154. It directed the AO to allow the exemption under the correct section, applying the rule of consistency.

The Tribunal held that the intimation under Section 143(1) merged with the subsequent assessment order under Section 143(3). Consequently, the appeal against the 143(1) intimation became infructuous.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere.

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

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the source of the property investment was a verifiable loan from ICICI Bank. The Tribunal also found no merit in the revenue's ground regarding the violation of Rule 46A.

The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Swati Bajaj & Others, held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the share transactions. The gains were considered bogus and added to the income.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the short-term capital loss claimed from penny stocks, which was a specific reason for scrutiny. The Tribunal also found that the AO's assessment order did not discuss the issues raised for scrutiny, making it erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was barred by limitation as it was passed after the period stipulated in Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the penalty was cancelled.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not have the power to disallow the deduction under section 80P while processing the return under section 143(1) for AY 2019-20, as this power was granted later. Therefore, the disallowance was set aside.

The Tribunal held that adjustments for capacity utilization and working capital levels are permissible and directed the TPO/AO to collect necessary data from comparable companies to allow these adjustments. The matter was remitted back to the TPO/AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that strict compliance with Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) is mandatory for claiming deduction. Provisions of Section 43B cannot be applied to employees' contributions to PF & ESI.

The Tribunal held that the AO did not exceed his jurisdiction as the addition was made while scrutinizing the very issue for which the case was selected. However, the CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merits.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a DIN in the revision order, as mandated by CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019, renders the order invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Consequently, the revision order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT failed to apply his mind to the facts and evidence presented by the assessee, which had also been considered by the AO. The Tribunal found that the Pr. CIT's order was not based on an incorrect assumption of fact or incorrect application of law, and therefore, the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 were not met.

The Tribunal held that the subsidy received was a capital receipt and that its inclusion in taxable income constituted a mistake apparent from the record. The lower authorities failed to exercise their jurisdiction in denying relief.