ITAT Kolkata Judgments — April 2023

The Tribunal held that processing an invalid return under Section 143(1) is improper and not in accordance with the Act. Once a return is declared invalid under Section 139(9), it is considered as if no return was filed.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The ITAT held that the revised monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 apply retrospectively to pending appeals. Since the tax effect was below the prescribed limit, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, which directed the deletion of 5 out of the 6 additional comparable companies added by the TPO. The CIT(A) found significant size differential and functional dissimilarity in these companies.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the share subscriber was a group company, the transaction was for business interest, and the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness were duly proved. The decision was supported by a High Court ruling on similar facts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its burden under Section 68 by providing sufficient documentary evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions. The non-appearance of directors of shareholder companies alone was not a sufficient ground to invoke Section 68.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and lacked proper adjudication. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to examine both purchases and sales in conjunction with cumulative bank deposits and to consider the assessee's explanation before passing a fresh order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by filing various documents to explain the source of share capital and premium. The non-appearance of directors alone was not sufficient grounds for addition under Section 68.

The Tribunal held that the amount received was a refund of a prior year's advance and not a fresh credit or unexplained expenditure. The assessee had provided sufficient explanation and documentary evidence for the transaction.

The Tribunal admitted the Revenue's appeal after condoning a delay, considering the COVID-19 pandemic. The core issue revolves around the deletion of the addition made by the AO regarding share capital and premium, which the Revenue argues was not properly substantiated by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was indeed ex-parte and lacked merit. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the lower sale consideration was justified because the assessee was already in possession of the property and had been running a business there for a long time. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was not justified.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the issue. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the AO for verification of the MAT credit claim based on documents from earlier assessment years.

The Tribunal held that if reassessment proceedings are bad in law, they cannot be subject to revisionary proceedings under Section 263. The Tribunal found that the AO had examined the issue for which the case was reopened and taken a possible view, thus the revisionary order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the ad hoc disallowance of indirect expenses was not justified as no discrepancies were found in the audited books of account and the disallowance was made without proper analysis. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals) failed to correctly apply Sections 71, 23, and 24 of the Income Tax Act. The restrictions on setting off house property loss against salary income were not applicable for the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the information did not suggest escapement of income. The ad-hoc disallowance on an issue not forming the basis of reopening was also unsustainable, following the Jet Airways case.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the information did not suggest escapement of income. The ad-hoc disallowance on an issue not forming the basis of reopening was also unsustainable, following the Jet Airways case.

The Tribunal held that the issue of eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA was squarely covered by its own previous decision in the assessee's case for AY 2010-11 (ITA No. 1281/KOL/2015 dated 23.05.2018). In that decision, the Tribunal had extensively analyzed the facts and judicial precedents, concluding that the assessee was a developer and not merely a work contractor, and therefore, eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. The Tribunal found that the assessee undertook entrepreneurial and investment risks by deploying its resources and was responsible for indemnifying the employer and correcting defects at its own cost. Consequently, Explanation to Section 80IA(13) was held not applicable. The Revenue could not controvert this finding with any binding precedent. Therefore, the common issue regarding deduction under Section 80IA was dismissed. Regarding the taxability of interest on refund for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13, the Tribunal perused the CIT(A)'s finding that the interest was disclosed under the head 'Income from other sources' and found no reason to interfere. This issue was also dismissed. The Tribunal did not explicitly address the grounds related to incriminating documents for bogus share capital or the disallowance of labour charges, as the primary grounds concerning Section 80IA and interest on refund were dismissed, leading to the dismissal of all effective grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that the issue of eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA was squarely covered by its own previous decision in the assessee's case for AY 2010-11 (ITA No. 1281/KOL/2015 dated 23.05.2018). In that decision, the Tribunal had extensively analyzed the facts and judicial precedents, concluding that the assessee was a developer and not merely a work contractor, and therefore, eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. The Tribunal found that the assessee undertook entrepreneurial and investment risks by deploying its resources and was responsible for indemnifying the employer and correcting defects at its own cost. Consequently, Explanation to Section 80IA(13) was held not applicable. The Revenue could not controvert this finding with any binding precedent. Therefore, the common issue regarding deduction under Section 80IA was dismissed. Regarding the taxability of interest on refund for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13, the Tribunal perused the CIT(A)'s finding that the interest was disclosed under the head 'Income from other sources' and found no reason to interfere. This issue was also dismissed. The Tribunal did not explicitly address the grounds related to incriminating documents for bogus share capital or the disallowance of labour charges, as the primary grounds concerning Section 80IA and interest on refund were dismissed, leading to the dismissal of all effective grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that the issue of eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA was squarely covered by its own previous decision in the assessee's case for AY 2010-11 (ITA No. 1281/KOL/2015 dated 23.05.2018). In that decision, the Tribunal had extensively analyzed the facts and judicial precedents, concluding that the assessee was a developer and not merely a work contractor, and therefore, eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. The Tribunal found that the assessee undertook entrepreneurial and investment risks by deploying its resources and was responsible for indemnifying the employer and correcting defects at its own cost. Consequently, Explanation to Section 80IA(13) was held not applicable. The Revenue could not controvert this finding with any binding precedent. Therefore, the common issue regarding deduction under Section 80IA was dismissed. Regarding the taxability of interest on refund for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13, the Tribunal perused the CIT(A)'s finding that the interest was disclosed under the head 'Income from other sources' and found no reason to interfere. This issue was also dismissed. The Tribunal did not explicitly address the grounds related to incriminating documents for bogus share capital or the disallowance of labour charges, as the primary grounds concerning Section 80IA and interest on refund were dismissed, leading to the dismissal of all effective grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that the issue of eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA was squarely covered by its own previous decision in the assessee's case for AY 2010-11 (ITA No. 1281/KOL/2015 dated 23.05.2018). In that decision, the Tribunal had extensively analyzed the facts and judicial precedents, concluding that the assessee was a developer and not merely a work contractor, and therefore, eligible for deduction under Section 80IA. The Tribunal found that the assessee undertook entrepreneurial and investment risks by deploying its resources and was responsible for indemnifying the employer and correcting defects at its own cost. Consequently, Explanation to Section 80IA(13) was held not applicable. The Revenue could not controvert this finding with any binding precedent. Therefore, the common issue regarding deduction under Section 80IA was dismissed. Regarding the taxability of interest on refund for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13, the Tribunal perused the CIT(A)'s finding that the interest was disclosed under the head 'Income from other sources' and found no reason to interfere. This issue was also dismissed. The Tribunal did not explicitly address the grounds related to incriminating documents for bogus share capital or the disallowance of labour charges, as the primary grounds concerning Section 80IA and interest on refund were dismissed, leading to the dismissal of all effective grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a procedural formality and not mandatory. The assessee should not be denied foreign tax credit for late filing of this form, especially when no adverse consequences are prescribed for such delay.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P for late filing of return under Section 143(1)(a)(v) is not applicable for the assessment year 2018-19 as the amendment was effective from 01-04-2021. Therefore, the adjustment made by the CPC was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscriber companies and the genuineness of the transaction. The addition cannot be sustained merely for non-appearance to notices or for alleged lack of business activity of the subscribers.

The Tribunal held that the CPC exceeded its jurisdiction by making the disallowance under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The observation in the audit report was considered mere information, not a basis for automatic disallowance without verification.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the TDS claim and grant the credit within four months. The assessee was also directed not to delay the proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the interest income from Fixed Deposits, made to comply with statutory reserve fund requirements under the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006, should be treated as business income and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, holding that Rs. 6,10,000 deposited between 14.12.2016 to 16.12.2016 was explained by a prior withdrawal. For the remaining amount, considering the assessee's status and husband's medical expenses, a partial addition was sustained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing all relevant information and evidence to explain the share capital and premium. The AO failed to conduct proper investigations to verify the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal, noting the settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and no objection from the Revenue, granted the assessee's request. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's assessment order did not adequately address the details filed by the assessee, and the CIT(A) also failed to discuss crucial points raised by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was correct in deleting the addition. The identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions were established through documents and confirmations, and the non-appearance of directors alone was not sufficient grounds for addition.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was invalid because the AO had already examined the issue, gathered evidence, and taken a plausible view. The AO's decision was based on available facts and evidence, including responses to a notice under Section 133(6).

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not complied with the previous directions to verify the agreements. Since the assessee follows the mercantile system of accounting and agreements were examined, the tenancy vacancy charges were allowed on an accrual basis.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s ex parte order was not sustainable as the appeal was filed within the limitation period. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision with an opportunity for the assessee to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and taken a plausible view by treating FDR interest as income from other sources. The Tribunal found that the interest income was already offered to tax by the assessee and adequately explained. Therefore, the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

The CIT(A) admitted fresh evidence, called for a remand report from the AO, and found that the assessee had proven the genuineness and creditworthiness of the parties involved. The Tribunal found the Revenue's grounds to be vague and dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that once share subscribers are assessed and their transactions are scrutinized, the capital introduced by them into the assessee company is explained. The failure of directors to appear personally for summons should not lead to adverse inference if other evidence establishes the transaction.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the Assessing Officer lacked valid reasons to believe income had escaped assessment. Consequently, the subsequent actions of the CIT(A) in assessing commission income were also unsustainable.