ITAT Kolkata Judgments — May 2023

SQUARE FOUR ASSETS MANAGEMENT AND RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs DCIT, CC-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITSSA 51/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: Disposed24 May 2023AY 2013-2014Allowed

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions can only be made on the basis of incriminating material seized during the course of a search and not otherwise. The Tribunal observed that the search action was conducted on February 3, 2017, and at that point, the assessment had attained finality in terms of Section 153A of the Act. The additions made by the AO were based on information gathered from the annual audited accounts and books of accounts of the assessee concerning unsecured loans and other items, which the Tribunal opined do not constitute incriminating material. The Tribunal found support for its view in several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were without valid jurisdiction. The appeals of the assessees were allowed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside on this legal issue. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

SRIJAN TE UP PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs DCIT, CC-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITSSA 50/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: Disposed24 May 2023AY 2011-2012Allowed

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions can only be made on the basis of incriminating material seized during the course of a search and not otherwise. The Tribunal observed that the search action was conducted on February 3, 2017, and at that point, the assessment had attained finality in terms of Section 153A of the Act. The additions made by the AO were based on information gathered from the annual audited accounts and books of accounts of the assessee concerning unsecured loans and other items, which the Tribunal opined do not constitute incriminating material. The Tribunal found support for its view in several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were without valid jurisdiction. The appeals of the assessees were allowed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside on this legal issue. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

MACRO NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs DCIT, CC-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITSSA 43/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: Disposed24 May 2023AY 2012-2013Allowed

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions can only be made on the basis of incriminating material seized during the course of a search and not otherwise. The Tribunal observed that the search action was conducted on February 3, 2017, and at that point, the assessment had attained finality in terms of Section 153A of the Act. The additions made by the AO were based on information gathered from the annual audited accounts and books of accounts of the assessee concerning unsecured loans and other items, which the Tribunal opined do not constitute incriminating material. The Tribunal found support for its view in several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were without valid jurisdiction. The appeals of the assessees were allowed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside on this legal issue. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

SQUARE FOUR HOUSING & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs DCIT,CC-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITSSA 41/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: Disposed24 May 2023AY 2014-2015Allowed

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions can only be made on the basis of incriminating material seized during the course of a search and not otherwise. The Tribunal observed that the search action was conducted on February 3, 2017, and at that point, the assessment had attained finality in terms of Section 153A of the Act. The additions made by the AO were based on information gathered from the annual audited accounts and books of accounts of the assessee concerning unsecured loans and other items, which the Tribunal opined do not constitute incriminating material. The Tribunal found support for its view in several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were without valid jurisdiction. The appeals of the assessees were allowed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside on this legal issue. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

SQUARE FOUR HOUSING & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs DCIT, CC-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITSSA 39/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: Disposed24 May 2023AY 2011-2012Allowed

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions can only be made on the basis of incriminating material seized during the course of a search and not otherwise. The Tribunal observed that the search action was conducted on February 3, 2017, and at that point, the assessment had attained finality in terms of Section 153A of the Act. The additions made by the AO were based on information gathered from the annual audited accounts and books of accounts of the assessee concerning unsecured loans and other items, which the Tribunal opined do not constitute incriminating material. The Tribunal found support for its view in several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were without valid jurisdiction. The appeals of the assessees were allowed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside on this legal issue. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

DRUMSTICK NIRMAN (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs I.T.O.,WARD-1(4), KOLKATA

ITA 1642/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed24 May 2023AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal, in the absence of any representation or evidence from the assessee to substantiate the share transactions, found no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities. The addition made by the AO was upheld.

AAYUSH COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs PCIT-2, KOLKATA

ITA 139/KOL/2022[2011-12]Status: Heard24 May 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the revisionary powers were invoked beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 263(2) of the Act. The issues raised in the revision were not part of the reassessment proceedings.

ATUL KUMAR JAIN,KOLKATA vs ACIT, CIR. 30, KOLKATA

ITA 222/KOL/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 May 2023AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the donation claim was bogus, citing a previous decision involving the same donee ('SHGPH') where the donation was deemed fraudulent. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to the deduction.

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs M/S. SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 736/KOL/2022[2005-2006]Status: Disposed24 May 2023AY 2005-2006Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objections, finding merit in the grounds related to the delay in filing the revenue's appeal and the legality of the reassessment proceedings. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.

BIJAN BEHARI BISWAS,KOLKATA vs I.T.O., WARD - 10(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 774/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: Disposed24 May 2023AY 2018-2019Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 13,42,563/- was not sustainable due to the inadvertent error. The disallowance was restricted to the correct amount of Rs. 7,42,563/-.

BANGLA READYMADE GARMENTS MFG & TRADERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION.,KOLKATA vs ACIT,CIR-26(1), KOLKATA

ITA 188/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed24 May 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal held that for Section 44AB to apply, it must first be determined if the assessee is carrying on a business and if its turnover exceeds the prescribed limit. The penalty under Section 271B is for failure to get accounts audited as required by Section 44AB.

DCIT, CIR-5(1), KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs M/S. BALMER LAWRIE AND CO LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 259/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed24 May 2023AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the lease premium is allowable as business expenditure, prior period expenses are allowable as claimed, and the addition under Section 80IA was correctly deleted. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions in the assessee's own case and CBDT circulars.

ITO,WARD-11(1)., KOLKATA vs REPOSIT FINCO PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

ITA 264/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed24 May 2023AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal held that since the revisionary order under Section 263, which preceded the assessment order, was set aside by the Tribunal, all subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order, became infructuous. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the assessee's appeal.

R.K.CHOUDHURY MEDICAL SOCIETY,KOLKATA vs CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

ITA 298/KOL/2023[N.A.]Status: Disposed24 May 2023Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application without considering the adjournment petition. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) to provide another opportunity to the assessee.

G S GLOBAL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs DCIT, CC-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITSSA 38/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: Disposed24 May 2023AY 2013-2014Allowed

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions can only be made on the basis of incriminating material seized during the course of a search and not otherwise. The Tribunal observed that the search action was conducted on February 3, 2017, and at that point, the assessment had attained finality in terms of Section 153A of the Act. The additions made by the AO were based on information gathered from the annual audited accounts and books of accounts of the assessee concerning unsecured loans and other items, which the Tribunal opined do not constitute incriminating material. The Tribunal found support for its view in several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were without valid jurisdiction. The appeals of the assessees were allowed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside on this legal issue. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

ANITA SINGHANIA,KOLKATA vs D.C.I.T.,CC-2(3), KOLKATA

ITSSA 32/KOL/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed24 May 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions can only be made on the basis of incriminating material seized during the course of a search and not otherwise. The Tribunal observed that the search action was conducted on February 3, 2017, and at that point, the assessment had attained finality in terms of Section 153A of the Act. The additions made by the AO were based on information gathered from the annual audited accounts and books of accounts of the assessee concerning unsecured loans and other items, which the Tribunal opined do not constitute incriminating material. The Tribunal found support for its view in several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were without valid jurisdiction. The appeals of the assessees were allowed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside on this legal issue. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

G.S. GLOBAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ,KOLKATA vs DCIT, C.C.-2(3), KOLKATA

ITSSA 19/KOL/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed24 May 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions can only be made on the basis of incriminating material seized during the course of a search and not otherwise. The Tribunal observed that the search action was conducted on February 3, 2017, and at that point, the assessment had attained finality in terms of Section 153A of the Act. The additions made by the AO were based on information gathered from the annual audited accounts and books of accounts of the assessee concerning unsecured loans and other items, which the Tribunal opined do not constitute incriminating material. The Tribunal found support for its view in several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were without valid jurisdiction. The appeals of the assessees were allowed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside on this legal issue. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

SQUARE FOUR ASSETS MANAGEMENT AND RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs DCIT, CEN. CIR. -2(3) , KOLKATA

ITSSA 17/KOL/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed24 May 2023AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions can only be made on the basis of incriminating material seized during the course of a search and not otherwise. The Tribunal observed that the search action was conducted on February 3, 2017, and at that point, the assessment had attained finality in terms of Section 153A of the Act. The additions made by the AO were based on information gathered from the annual audited accounts and books of accounts of the assessee concerning unsecured loans and other items, which the Tribunal opined do not constitute incriminating material. The Tribunal found support for its view in several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were without valid jurisdiction. The appeals of the assessees were allowed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside on this legal issue. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

GANESH KUMAR SINGHANIA,KOLKATA vs D.C.I.T., CC-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITSSA 105/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: Disposed24 May 2023AY 2015-2016Allowed

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions can only be made on the basis of incriminating material seized during the course of a search and not otherwise. The Tribunal observed that the search action was conducted on February 3, 2017, and at that point, the assessment had attained finality in terms of Section 153A of the Act. The additions made by the AO were based on information gathered from the annual audited accounts and books of accounts of the assessee concerning unsecured loans and other items, which the Tribunal opined do not constitute incriminating material. The Tribunal found support for its view in several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were without valid jurisdiction. The appeals of the assessees were allowed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside on this legal issue. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

GANESH KUMAR SINGHANIA,KOLKATA vs D.C.I.T., CC-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITSSA 103/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: Disposed24 May 2023AY 2013-2014Allowed

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions can only be made on the basis of incriminating material seized during the course of a search and not otherwise. The Tribunal observed that the search action was conducted on February 3, 2017, and at that point, the assessment had attained finality in terms of Section 153A of the Act. The additions made by the AO were based on information gathered from the annual audited accounts and books of accounts of the assessee concerning unsecured loans and other items, which the Tribunal opined do not constitute incriminating material. The Tribunal found support for its view in several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were without valid jurisdiction. The appeals of the assessees were allowed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside on this legal issue. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

GANESH KUMAR SINGHANIA,KOLKATA vs D.C.I.T., CC-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITSSA 102/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: Disposed24 May 2023AY 2012-2013Allowed

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions can only be made on the basis of incriminating material seized during the course of a search and not otherwise. The Tribunal observed that the search action was conducted on February 3, 2017, and at that point, the assessment had attained finality in terms of Section 153A of the Act. The additions made by the AO were based on information gathered from the annual audited accounts and books of accounts of the assessee concerning unsecured loans and other items, which the Tribunal opined do not constitute incriminating material. The Tribunal found support for its view in several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were without valid jurisdiction. The appeals of the assessees were allowed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside on this legal issue. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

SQUARE FOUR ASSETS MANAGEMENT & RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITSSA 62/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: Disposed24 May 2023AY 2011-2012Allowed

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions can only be made on the basis of incriminating material seized during the course of a search and not otherwise. The Tribunal observed that the search action was conducted on February 3, 2017, and at that point, the assessment had attained finality in terms of Section 153A of the Act. The additions made by the AO were based on information gathered from the annual audited accounts and books of accounts of the assessee concerning unsecured loans and other items, which the Tribunal opined do not constitute incriminating material. The Tribunal found support for its view in several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were without valid jurisdiction. The appeals of the assessees were allowed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside on this legal issue. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

GANESH KUMAR SINGHANIA,KOLKATA vs D.C.I.T., CC-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITSSA 101/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: Disposed24 May 2023AY 2011-2012Allowed

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions can only be made on the basis of incriminating material seized during the course of a search and not otherwise. The Tribunal observed that the search action was conducted on February 3, 2017, and at that point, the assessment had attained finality in terms of Section 153A of the Act. The additions made by the AO were based on information gathered from the annual audited accounts and books of accounts of the assessee concerning unsecured loans and other items, which the Tribunal opined do not constitute incriminating material. The Tribunal found support for its view in several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were without valid jurisdiction. The appeals of the assessees were allowed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside on this legal issue. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

M/S. KALYAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BUDBUD, BURDWAN (EAST) vs A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

ITA 106/KOL/2023[2020-2021]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2020-2021Allowed

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the return and Form 10B was condonable due to the extraordinary circumstances of fire and the pandemic, as per the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods. Consequently, the rejection of exemption claims was set aside.

M/S. SRI VINAYAK FINCON PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs ITO, WARD-7(3), KOLKATA

ITA 205/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that if an assessee has no tax-free income, no expenditure can be disallowed under Section 14A. This decision followed the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Era Infrastructure Limited.

JAYANTI ROY,KOLKATA vs I.T.O., WARD - 33(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 104/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2017-2018Allowed

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were out of the past withdrawals made by the assessee. Therefore, the additions made by the revenue were not sustainable.

KAVITA SARAFF,KOLKATA vs D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-49(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 610/KOL/2022[2008-2009]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2008-2009Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) may not have considered all submissions and documents, potentially violating natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

SAMPAT DEVI PATAWARI,RAJASTHAN vs I.T.O., WARD - 45(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 725/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2016-2017Allowed

The Tribunal found that the Revenue Authorities disallowed depreciation without a deep analysis of the complete details. The machineries in question could not operate independently and formed part of a single unit for production.

GAJGAMINI TREXIM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs ITO, WARD - 9(2), KOLKATA

ITA 2144/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's application for condonation of delay was vague and did not provide sufficient reasons for the delay. The assessee's conduct indicated a lack of seriousness in contesting the issues.

M/S KIRITIKUNJ AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE

ITA 128/KOL/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that if payments of employees' contribution to PF and ESI are not made within the due dates prescribed by those Acts, such amounts cannot be claimed as a deduction, following the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Limited.

KANAI MAJI,PURULIA vs ITO,WARD-2(2)., ASANSOL

ITA 197/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that since the assessee disputed the deemed cost of purchase, a reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) was necessary to determine the fair market value. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for this purpose.

GUPTA TRANSFORMER PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs ITO,WARD-10(1), KOLKATA

ITA 204/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's logic for making the addition was flawed, as the assessee had made purchases and not received cash. The addition was based on imagination without analytical examination of the record.

SRI VINAYAK FINCON PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs ITO, WARD-7(3), KOLKATA

ITA 206/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that if an assessee has no tax-free income, no expenditure can be disallowed under Section 14A. This decision followed the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Era Infrastructure Limited.

SMT.SHYAMALI DAS,KOLKATA vs ACIT, KOLKATA

ITA 211/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the gain on sale of flats should be treated as long-term capital gain as the land was held for more than three years. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee did not want a reference to the DVO for valuation, considering the smallness of the amount.

OJASWINI RETAILERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs ITO, WARD - 6(3), KOLKATA

ITA 213/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation and supporting documents for the credit entries. Both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(Appeals) failed to analytically examine the submissions made by the assessee.

PRANTOSH DAS,KOLKATA vs ITO, WARD-49(1), KOLKATA

ITA 271/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While the ground challenging the ex-parte order was dismissed, the addition of Rs. 10,00,500/- was reversed as the source of the cash deposit was explained by withdrawal from another bank account.

NAIYER SULTAN,KOLKATA vs ADIT, KOLKATA

ITA 315/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that Income-tax Authorities should not burden assessees with high taxes due to bona fide mistakes and should assist in assessing correct income. The CIT(A) failed to exercise jurisdiction to assess the true income.

M/S. A. S. CONFIN PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs I.T.O., WARD-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 63/KOL/2023[2015-2016]Status: Disposed23 May 2023AY 2015-2016Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) should have adopted a sympathetic view and condoned the delay. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and directed it to adjudicate the appeal on its merits.

KISHOREPUR PASCHIMANCHAL S K U S LIMITED,HOOGHLY vs I.T.O., WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

ITA 716/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: Disposed22 May 2023AY 2019-2020Allowed

The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction under Section 80P solely on the ground of belated filing of the return of income, in proceedings under Section 143(1) for AY 2019-20, was not justified. The amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) allowing such disallowance was not applicable for this assessment year.

SUBRATA PURKAIT,KOLKATA vs I.T.O., WARD - 26(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 103/KOL/2023[2014-2015]Status: Disposed22 May 2023AY 2014-2015Remanded

The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh examination, citing the violation of natural justice and the need for the CIT(A) to consider the assessee's details. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide necessary documents.

M/S SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD.,KOLKATA vs ACIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA

ITA 1318/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 May 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of provision for leave encashment and education cess, and the inclusion of the special reserve in book profits. The revenue's appeal regarding contingent provision against standard assets was partly allowed.

SUBRATA PURKAIT,KOLKATA vs I.T.O., WARD - 26(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 101/KOL/2023[2012-2013]Status: Disposed22 May 2023AY 2012-2013Remanded

The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh examination, citing the violation of natural justice and the need for the CIT(A) to consider the assessee's details. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide necessary documents.

SUBRATA PURKAIT,KOLKATA vs I.T.O., WARD - 26(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 102/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: Disposed22 May 2023AY 2013-2014Remanded

The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh examination, citing the violation of natural justice and the need for the CIT(A) to consider the assessee's details. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide necessary documents.

ACIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA vs M/S SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1538/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 May 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of provision for leave encashment and education cess, and the inclusion of the special reserve in book profits. The revenue's appeal regarding contingent provision against standard assets was partly allowed.

M/S AKSHARA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs I.T.O.,WARD-2(2), KOLKATA

ITA 2073/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 May 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that non-compliance with a summons alone is not sufficient grounds for addition, especially when the assessee provided all necessary evidence and the subscribers' assessments were also framed.

ROBERT HOLDING PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs I.T.O.,WARD-4(1), KOLKATA

ITA 368/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: Disposed22 May 2023AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had not properly examined the assessee's contention that past loans were converted into shares. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination of the transaction's genuineness and the revenue's claim of a scheme to introduce unaccounted money.

AMITABH JALAN FAMILY TRUST,KOLKATA vs A.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

ITA 596/KOL/2022[2020-2021]Status: Heard22 May 2023AY 2020-2021Allowed

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CPC's calculation was incorrect. The Tribunal determined that after considering the correct deductions and business losses, the assessee's net income was below the basic tax exemption limit.

JAGANNATH KARBARH DESHAPRAN SAMABAY KRISHI UNNAYAN SAMITY LTD.,EGRA, PURBA MEDINIPUR vs I.T.O., WARD - 27(4), HALDIA, HALDIA

ITA 667/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: Disposed22 May 2023AY 2018-2019Allowed

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80P cannot be denied solely on the ground of belated filing of the return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19, as the relevant amendment to Section 143(1) was not applicable. The intimation under Section 143(1) was quashed.

M/S STEWART HOLL (INDIA) LTD.,KOLKATA vs ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

ITA 362/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 May 2023AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground and held that after the disallowance, 40% of the resultant income should be treated as taxable income as per Rule 8(1). The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for recomputation.

KAMAL BHANDARI,KOLKATA vs I.T.O., WARD - 4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 65/KOL/2023[2007-2008]Status: Disposed19 May 2023AY 2007-2008Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient balance in the HUF's books to justify the investment. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the assessee's income in the name of the HUF was deleted. The Tribunal also deleted the profits/interest earned on these investments.