ITAT Kolkata Judgments — April 2023

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed furnished proof of application in Form 10A and had obtained provisional approval in Form 10AC. Therefore, the CIT(E)'s dismissal was incorrect.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, with an opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order is bad in law as the notice u/s 143(2) was issued by an officer who did not complete the assessment, and no valid order u/s 127 for transfer of the case was produced. Therefore, the Assessing Officer lacked the jurisdiction to pass the assessment order.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to management fees, finding that the services were specific and not shareholder activities. It also upheld the deletion of the Section 14A disallowance, noting that the assessee had no exempt income and had offered all investment income to tax.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, both appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that since the basis for computing the penalty (the addition to income) was no longer available after the CIT(Appeals)'s decision, no penalty could be imposed. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) failed to follow the mandatory procedure of stating points in dispute and recording reasons. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO had travelled beyond the scope of the remand order by raising a new issue. The assessee provided satisfactory explanations and documentary evidence for the cash withdrawals, which were not controverted by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not justified. It noted that the assessee had acknowledged the debts, there was no write-off, and similar balances were accepted in the preceding assessment year by the same AO. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submissions and deleted the additions.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of additions related to management fees, finding that the services were specific and not shareholder activities. It also upheld the deletion of the Section 14A disallowance, noting that the assessee had no exempt income and had offered all investment income to tax.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, both appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 11,04,51,450/-. It found that the companies subscribing to the shares and premium lacked the financial capacity and business activity to justify such an investment.

The Tribunal noted a discrepancy in the amounts stated by the AO regarding the claimed exemption and the addition made. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination and decision on the correct amount of long-term capital gain.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive the notices and therefore could not file submissions. To meet the ends of justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- was incorrectly made in the hands of the assessee. If any addition was to be made, it should have been in the hands of Santosh Agency, which received the funds from M/s Patra Bastralaya.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the AO. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with the share subscribers, who were relatives and regularly assessed to tax.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not valid because the reasons recorded did not quantify the escaped income and the addition made was not part of the reasons to believe. Therefore, the reassessment was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 was unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessment year in question was unabated. Following the decisions of coordinate benches in the cases of the assessee's group concerns, it was held that bank accounts found and seized during the search, which were already disclosed in the books of account and the original return, do not constitute incriminating materials. Therefore, no addition can be made on the basis of such documents in an unabated assessment year as they fall outside the ambit of incriminating materials. The Tribunal specifically referred to the reasoning in the case of Carevel Medical System Pvt Ltd. and M/s A One Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., which emphasized that incriminating material is a prerequisite for exercising power under Section 153A, and the AO lacks jurisdiction to reopen concluded cases if the search did not disclose any incriminating material. Consequently, the addition was directed to be deleted. Since the appeal was allowed on this legal issue, other grounds were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition made by the AO. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions with the share subscribers, who were relatives and regularly assessed to tax.

The Tribunal held that the condition of having an agreement with a specified authority under Section 80-IA(4)(b) is a substantive requirement. The agreement with KSPL, a private company, did not fulfill this condition, even if KSPL was performing functions on behalf of the government. Therefore, the deduction was rightly denied.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the CBDT Circular No. 2 of 2020, which allowed condonation of delay for filing Form 10B for assessment years prior to AY 2018-19. The assessee's application for condonation was filed within the stipulated time.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Instruction No. 17 of 2019, appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 50,00,000/- should not be challenged before the Tribunal, unless specific exceptions apply. Since no exceptions were met, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not considering the CBDT Circular No. 2 of 2020, which allowed condonation of delay for filing Form 10B for assessment years prior to AY 2018-19. The assessee's application for condonation was filed within the stipulated time.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. Therefore, the appeal should have been dismissed at the outset.

The Tribunal held that the condition of having an agreement with a specified authority under Section 80-IA(4)(b) is a substantive requirement. The agreement with KSPL, a private company, did not fulfill this condition, even if KSPL was performing functions on behalf of the government. Therefore, the deduction was rightly denied.

The Tribunal held that most of the issues raised by the Revenue were already decided in favour of the assessee in previous assessment years by the Tribunal and High Court. The Tribunal dismissed grounds related to written-off investments, amortization of premium, and disallowance under Section 14A for book profit computation.

The Tribunal held that the amount was a sales reversal and not unexplained expenditure. It also found that the Assessing Officer had conducted proper inquiries, making the revisionary order under Section 263 unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot dictate the manner of inquiry or substitute his view for a plausible view taken by the AO. Since the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and accepted the transaction based on evidence, the PCIT's order was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the Registry had correctly pointed out an inadvertent typographical error in the original order. The error pertained to the incorrect mention of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's Bench as 'B' instead of 'C' for the appeals I.T.(SS).A. Nos. 64 & 65/Kol/2022 for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14. Consequently, the Tribunal directed that the impugned order be corrected, and the Bench shall now be read as 'C'. This corrigendum is issued to modify the order accordingly, ensuring the accuracy of the official record regarding the adjudicating Bench. No other substantive issues were decided.

The Tribunal held that the Registry had correctly pointed out an inadvertent typographical error in the original order. The error pertained to the incorrect mention of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's Bench as 'B' instead of 'C' for the appeals I.T.(SS).A. Nos. 64 & 65/Kol/2022 for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14. Consequently, the Tribunal directed that the impugned order be corrected, and the Bench shall now be read as 'C'. This corrigendum is issued to modify the order accordingly, ensuring the accuracy of the official record regarding the adjudicating Bench. No other substantive issues were decided.

The Tribunal allowed the warranty claims and the write-off of assets, gratuity, and bonus, citing Supreme Court judgments and provisions of Section 43B. However, the provision for doubtful debts was dismissed based on a Supreme Court ruling.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause and the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause and the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal allowed the warranty claims and the write-off of assets, gratuity, and bonus, citing Supreme Court judgments and provisions of Section 43B. However, the provision for doubtful debts was dismissed based on a Supreme Court ruling.

The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, finding that the AO had not conducted sufficient inquiry into the purchases and closing stock valuation. The Tribunal agreed that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest, thus sustaining the PCIT's direction for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record satisfaction for invoking Section 14A and directed deletion of the disallowance. It also followed a coordinate bench decision to delete the addition related to Section 80IC. The issue of sundry creditors was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was invalid. The AO had made due inquiry and taken a plausible view based on the evidence, making the assessment neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

The tribunal issued a corrigendum to rectify the incorrect mention of the appellant's name and appeal numbers in the original order. This correction was made to accurately reflect the parties involved in the appeals.

The tribunal issued a corrigendum to rectify the names of the appellant banks in the appeal numbers and the endorsement page. The order was modified to accurately reflect the entities involved in the appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by furnishing documentary evidence for the share transactions. The AO failed to point out any defects in the evidence provided by the assessee, and the CIT(A) did not pass a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that once the reopening of assessment was quashed, no further directions could be given by the CIT(A) to verify documents related to corpus donations. The direction in paragraph 6.1 of the CIT(A)'s order was reversed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause and the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on limitation as the appeal was filed within time. The Tribunal also noted that the AO's addition was based on a wrong assumption that the assessee had issued share capital at a premium, which was not the case.

The Tribunal found that there was an inadvertent mistake in the audit report where the payment dates were left blank. Evidence showed that the PF & ESI payments were made within the statutory due dates.

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

The Tribunal noted that the returned income was accepted, yet a demand was raised erroneously. The issue was restored to the AO for re-computation and rectification after providing a hearing opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly invoked revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 as the issue was already sub-judice before the CIT(A). The exercise of jurisdiction was in violation of Clause (c) of Explanation 1 to Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable for audit under Section 44AB as their turnover did not exceed Rs. 2 crores and they had declared profits in accordance with Section 44AD(1). Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not validly served as the reasons for reopening were not supplied along with the notice within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were quashed.