ITAT Kolkata Judgments — February 2023

The Tribunal held that the donation of Rs. 11,00,000/- should be treated as a voluntary contribution towards the corpus of the Trust. This was based on the donor's affidavit, the trust's receipt, accounting entries, and the fact that the funds were applied for the trust's objects.

The Tribunal held that since the revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were quashed by a prior ITAT order, all subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263, became infructuous. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the AO became functus officio after passing the final assessment order and lacked jurisdiction to withdraw it or issue a subsequent draft order. The assessment order was quashed as it was a legal nullity.

The Tribunal granted the permission to withdraw the appeal as sought by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the AO incorrectly calculated the net profit rate. The correct book profit before partner remuneration and interest was Rs. 7,69,994/-, resulting in a net profit rate of 1.69%, which was above the AO's estimated rate. Therefore, the addition was unjustified.

The tribunal held that the assessee was not eligible for the tax rate under Section 115BAA due to the late filing of Form 10-IC. However, it found merit in the assessee's contention for a 25% tax rate based on its turnover being less than 400 crores as per the Finance Act 2020.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a genuine cause for the delay, which was beyond its control, and therefore, should not be penalized. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the deduction under Section 80P.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had provided all necessary documents and that the AO had miscalculated the amount received. The CIT(A) also noted that the share subscriber was a group company with common directors, and its financial statements demonstrated creditworthiness.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without granting an adequate opportunity of being heard. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the additions were made on an estimated basis and not due to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, the penalty was not justified. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions before the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee no longer wished to press the appeal as the subsequent assessment order rendered the appeal infructuous. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to the AO's failure to apply his mind to the information received and the presence of significant factual errors in the reasons recorded. The approval obtained for reopening was also considered invalid due to mechanical application.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order before the scheduled hearing date, thus denying the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeals. Since the CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and lacked merit discussion, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted them back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted it back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to submit documents, and the CIT(A) was to call for a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share capital and premium transactions. Consequently, the additions made by the lower authorities under Section 68 and Section 14A were confirmed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeals. Since the CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and lacked merit discussion, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted them back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposit was out of the opening cash balance, which was explained by the realization from debtors and cash sales already reported in the turnover. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the appellate authorities can entertain a claim not made in the original return, especially when the return was processed under Section 143(1) and the assessee had no opportunity to file a revised return. The claim under Section 80JJAA falls under Chapter VIA, distinguishing it from cases under Chapter III.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner erred in exercising revisionary powers under Section 263 because the subject matter of the assessment orders (share capital and premium) was already under appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) has the power to examine and decide such issues.

The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. This was based on the assessee having settled the tax arrears under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing all necessary details regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share subscribing companies. The AO's addition was deemed unjustified as he failed to conduct independent investigations beyond issuing notices.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate the facts and the relevant Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme rules. The payments were made within the due date as per the scheme, and therefore, the disallowance was incorrect.