ITAT Kolkata Judgments — March 2023

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as the assessee had provided a reasonable cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim that the services did not 'make available' technical knowledge should be accepted. Following its own prior decision for the preceding assessment year, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order for AY 2011-12 was a nullity due to the wrong assessment year and quashed it. For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to furnish documents.

The Tribunal held that the variation between the arm's length price determined by the TPO and the price at which international transactions were undertaken by the assessee did not exceed 3%. Therefore, the price at which the transactions were entered into shall be deemed to be the arm's length price.

The Tribunal clarified that a return filed under Section 139(4) of the Act, even if belated, should be treated as due compliance with Section 12A(1)(ba) of the Act for the assessment year 2018-19. The beneficial view to the assessee was accepted.

The tribunal granted the permission sought by the assessee and dismissed the revenue's appeal. This was due to the matter being settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to prosecute the appeal. The Tribunal proceeded to decide the appeal based on available facts and the respondent's arguments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for set-off of brought forward losses under Section 72AA of the Act. Several disallowances related to provisions for fraud, gratuity, and contingencies were also allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for set-off of brought forward losses under Section 72AA of the Act. Several disallowances related to provisions for fraud, gratuity, and contingencies were also allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in real estate business and had incurred similar expenses in prior years which were allowed as business loss. Therefore, these expenses should be allowed as business expenses.

The Tribunal held that the rate of depreciation on excavators and bulldozers is 30% as per the Act. The issue was also covered by a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for an earlier year.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order for AY 2011-12 was a nullity due to the wrong assessment year and quashed it. For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to furnish documents.

The Tribunal held that the AO made the addition on an estimated basis without rejecting the books of accounts, which were duly audited. Since the books were not rejected and no discrepancies were found, estimating gross profit is not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it failed to examine the issues of interest on LIC pension and income from land acquisition. Consequently, the revisionary order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was confirmed.

The Tribunal found that the cash deposits were not unaccounted income but were part of the assessee's business model to earn livelihood. The lower authorities were not justified in disallowing the amount under Section 69A.

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

The tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 11 read with section 12A for the assessment year 2019-20, as the objects and activities remained the same and the assessment proceedings were pending on the date of registration.

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's contention of a typographical error in the audit report and consider the revised report.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not earned any exempt income, the disallowance under Section 14A was not warranted. The AO's disallowance was based on a misconception of facts.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) should be restricted to 40% of the employee contributions to PF & ESI, following previous judgments. It also held that interest on delayed GST payments is allowable under Section 37, but late filing fees and interest on delayed professional tax payments are not.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' and the need for substantial justice. It was held that for a single instance of non-response, a lenient view should have been taken by the Assessing Officer, and the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner's revision order was not justified as the assessee had not claimed interest on the overstated capital. The error was factual and did not prejudice the revenue's interest, nor was the Assessing Officer's order erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits, which was not in compliance with the Act. The matter was restored to the AO for verification and adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making additions for purchases and expenses without conducting further inquiries, especially when documentary evidence like bills and cheque payments were provided. The CIT(A) also erred in making ad hoc disallowances.

The Tribunal found the disallowance to be on the higher side, considering the assessee had provided sufficient details for other major expenses. It reduced the disallowance to 10% of the total common lorry expenses.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had duly examined the details of royalty expenses and applied his mind, making the Pr. CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 unsustainable. The Pr. CIT's action was considered a 'change of opinion' without establishing the assessment order was erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making additions for purchases and expenses without conducting further inquiries, especially when documentary evidence like bills and cheque payments were provided. The CIT(A) also erred in making ad hoc disallowances.

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 CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the amendment increasing the tolerance band to 10% under Section 56(2)(x) is clarificatory and curative in nature, thus having retrospective application. Since the difference between the stamp duty valuation and the actual consideration was less than 10%, no addition was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC while processing the return under section 143(1) was uncalled for and beyond the permissible adjustments. The Tribunal directed that the adjustment be deleted.

The Tribunal decided to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b). This was due to the introduction of the National Faceless e-Assessment, which might have caused procedural difficulties for the assessee in understanding and complying with the notices.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had sufficient material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment, particularly regarding the alleged bogus claim of donation. The reopening of assessment was deemed valid, and the grounds challenging it were rejected.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had sufficient material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment, particularly regarding the alleged bogus claim of donation. The reopening of assessment was deemed valid, and the grounds challenging it were rejected.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had sufficient material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment, particularly regarding the alleged bogus claim of donation. The reopening of assessment was deemed valid, and the grounds challenging it were rejected.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had sufficient material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment, particularly regarding the alleged bogus claim of donation. The reopening of assessment was deemed valid, and the grounds challenging it were rejected.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had sufficient material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment, particularly regarding the alleged bogus claim of donation. The reopening of assessment was deemed valid, and the grounds challenging it were rejected.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had sufficient material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment, particularly regarding the alleged bogus claim of donation. The reopening of assessment was deemed valid, and the grounds challenging it were rejected.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had sufficient material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment, particularly regarding the alleged bogus claim of donation. The reopening of assessment was deemed valid, and the grounds challenging it were rejected.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had sufficient material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment, particularly regarding the alleged bogus claim of donation. The reopening of assessment was deemed valid, and the grounds challenging it were rejected.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had sufficient material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment, particularly regarding the alleged bogus claim of donation. The reopening of assessment was deemed valid, and the grounds challenging it were rejected.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had sufficient material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment, particularly regarding the alleged bogus claim of donation. The reopening of assessment was deemed valid, and the grounds challenging it were rejected.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had sufficient material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment, particularly regarding the alleged bogus claim of donation. The reopening of assessment was deemed valid, and the grounds challenging it were rejected.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had sufficient material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment, particularly regarding the alleged bogus claim of donation. The reopening of assessment was deemed valid, and the grounds challenging it were rejected.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had sufficient material to form a belief that income had escaped assessment, particularly regarding the alleged bogus claim of donation. The reopening of assessment was deemed valid, and the grounds challenging it were rejected.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to record specific findings on the issues agitated and had passed an ex-parte, non-speaking order without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT instructions. The assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed for not demonstrating any grievance against the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) failed to adhere to the procedural requirements, including proper notice and opportunity of hearing. Consequently, both impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the revenue's appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT instructions. The assessee's cross-objections were also dismissed for not demonstrating any grievance against the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted a complete inquiry and examined all necessary details as directed by the Principal Commissioner (PCIT). The PCIT's order under Section 263 was found to be unjustified as there was no evidence of a lack of inquiry or erroneous findings by the AO.