ITAT Kolkata Judgments — June 2023

The Tribunal noted that due to the NCLT order approving the resolution plan, all liabilities prior to that date were extinguished. Consequently, the appeals became infructuous and were allowed to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that a valid notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory requirement for assessment proceedings. Since the notice was issued by an officer without valid jurisdiction, the assessment proceedings and the assessment framed thereafter were quashed.

The Tribunal found that the land was indeed agricultural and used for agricultural purposes prior to acquisition, based on evidence like RTI replies and Malgujari receipts. Therefore, the capital gains were exempt under Section 10(37).

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justified as the assessee had subsequently complied with the notices, and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3), not Section 144. The initial non-compliance was considered technical due to issues like technical glitches.

The Tribunal found a complete non-application of mind by the AO and a gross error in treating loss as income. The First Appellate Authority also failed to rectify this mistake.

The Tribunal held that the addition under section 56(2)(vii)(b) was untenable as there was no basis for it and directed it to be adjusted from the suo motu disclosure. The addition for undisclosed income was also set aside due to lack of corroborating material for the voluntary disclosure.

The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is not allowable, even if deposited before the due date of filing the return. This is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT.

The Tribunal noted that due to the NCLT order approving the resolution plan, all liabilities prior to that date were extinguished. Consequently, the appeals became infructuous and were allowed to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that due to the NCLT order approving the resolution plan, all liabilities prior to that date were extinguished. Consequently, the appeals became infructuous and were allowed to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that due to the NCLT order approving the resolution plan, all liabilities prior to that date were extinguished. Consequently, the appeals became infructuous and were allowed to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that due to the NCLT order approving the resolution plan, all liabilities prior to that date were extinguished. Consequently, the appeals became infructuous and were allowed to be withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the TCS return, as it was beyond her control due to the pandemic. Therefore, the late filing fees levied were ordered to be deleted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard and present their case before the PCIT, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the PCIT's order was set aside.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 and AY 2015-16. For AY 2013-14, the appeal was allowed in terms discussed in the cited precedent. For AY 2014-15, the appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decisions in the cases of Amar Singh vs. ACIT and Bharat Singh vs. ACIT, which involved identical facts and co-owners of the same properties. The reasoning was that the issues raised were squarely covered by those precedents. Specifically, for AY 2015-16, the Tribunal noted that the assessment was time-barred, and no incriminating material was found, rendering the Section 153C assessment without jurisdiction. The additions made by the AO for AY 2015-16 were ordered to be deleted. The judgment also indicated that for AY 2014-15, additions were sustained to the extent of Rs. 24,22,066/-, after considering deductions and allowing adjustment of taxes paid for earlier years against taxes due for AY 2014-15, in view of quashed assessments for AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 and sustained additions for AY 2013-14.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision jurisdiction under section 263 was exercised beyond the scope of the reassessment proceedings. The issues raised by the PCIT were not the subject matter of the reassessment order, and therefore, the revision order was time-barred.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice and fair play, the assessee deserved one more opportunity to defend their case on merits before the CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that the assessee's appeals were decided ex parte due to their failure to appear on the scheduled hearing dates. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored all the appeals to the file of the CIT(A). The directions were to decide the appeals on merits after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal also directed the assessee to cooperate diligently in the disposal of these appeals. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, which clarified that delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI beyond the statutory due date is not deductible, is binding. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was upheld.

The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing Form 10B was condoned by the CIT(Exemption). Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow admissible deductions under Section 11.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 and AY 2015-16. For AY 2013-14, the appeal was allowed in terms discussed in the cited precedent. For AY 2014-15, the appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decisions in the cases of Amar Singh vs. ACIT and Bharat Singh vs. ACIT, which involved identical facts and co-owners of the same properties. The reasoning was that the issues raised were squarely covered by those precedents. Specifically, for AY 2015-16, the Tribunal noted that the assessment was time-barred, and no incriminating material was found, rendering the Section 153C assessment without jurisdiction. The additions made by the AO for AY 2015-16 were ordered to be deleted. The judgment also indicated that for AY 2014-15, additions were sustained to the extent of Rs. 24,22,066/-, after considering deductions and allowing adjustment of taxes paid for earlier years against taxes due for AY 2014-15, in view of quashed assessments for AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 and sustained additions for AY 2013-14.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not provide any direct incriminating evidence against the assessee and relied solely on a general investigation report. The circumstantial evidence was considered weak and distinguishable from other cases.

The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The due date for depositing employees' contribution to PF is as prescribed under Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, and not the due date for filing the return of income.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is valid, even if paid before the due date of filing the return. The Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. was relied upon.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 and AY 2015-16. For AY 2013-14, the appeal was allowed in terms discussed in the cited precedent. For AY 2014-15, the appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decisions in the cases of Amar Singh vs. ACIT and Bharat Singh vs. ACIT, which involved identical facts and co-owners of the same properties. The reasoning was that the issues raised were squarely covered by those precedents. Specifically, for AY 2015-16, the Tribunal noted that the assessment was time-barred, and no incriminating material was found, rendering the Section 153C assessment without jurisdiction. The additions made by the AO for AY 2015-16 were ordered to be deleted. The judgment also indicated that for AY 2014-15, additions were sustained to the extent of Rs. 24,22,066/-, after considering deductions and allowing adjustment of taxes paid for earlier years against taxes due for AY 2014-15, in view of quashed assessments for AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 and sustained additions for AY 2013-14.

The Tribunal held that interest income from surplus funds deposited with a commercial bank is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P, but interest earned on statutory funds (bad debt and reserve funds) is eligible. Income from holiday homes is to be treated as business income, but not eligible for Section 80P deduction.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 and AY 2015-16. For AY 2013-14, the appeal was allowed in terms discussed in the cited precedent. For AY 2014-15, the appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decisions in the cases of Amar Singh vs. ACIT and Bharat Singh vs. ACIT, which involved identical facts and co-owners of the same properties. The reasoning was that the issues raised were squarely covered by those precedents. Specifically, for AY 2015-16, the Tribunal noted that the assessment was time-barred, and no incriminating material was found, rendering the Section 153C assessment without jurisdiction. The additions made by the AO for AY 2015-16 were ordered to be deleted. The judgment also indicated that for AY 2014-15, additions were sustained to the extent of Rs. 24,22,066/-, after considering deductions and allowing adjustment of taxes paid for earlier years against taxes due for AY 2014-15, in view of quashed assessments for AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 and sustained additions for AY 2013-14.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under section 153(2A), second proviso. Therefore, the assessment order and consequential additions were to be treated as non-est and deleted.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 and AY 2015-16. For AY 2013-14, the appeal was allowed in terms discussed in the cited precedent. For AY 2014-15, the appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decisions in the cases of Amar Singh vs. ACIT and Bharat Singh vs. ACIT, which involved identical facts and co-owners of the same properties. The reasoning was that the issues raised were squarely covered by those precedents. Specifically, for AY 2015-16, the Tribunal noted that the assessment was time-barred, and no incriminating material was found, rendering the Section 153C assessment without jurisdiction. The additions made by the AO for AY 2015-16 were ordered to be deleted. The judgment also indicated that for AY 2014-15, additions were sustained to the extent of Rs. 24,22,066/-, after considering deductions and allowing adjustment of taxes paid for earlier years against taxes due for AY 2014-15, in view of quashed assessments for AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 and sustained additions for AY 2013-14.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice and fair play, the assessee deserved one more opportunity to defend their case on merits before the CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that the assessee's appeals were decided ex parte due to their failure to appear on the scheduled hearing dates. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored all the appeals to the file of the CIT(A). The directions were to decide the appeals on merits after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal also directed the assessee to cooperate diligently in the disposal of these appeals. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice and fair play, the assessee deserved one more opportunity to defend their case on merits before the CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that the assessee's appeals were decided ex parte due to their failure to appear on the scheduled hearing dates. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored all the appeals to the file of the CIT(A). The directions were to decide the appeals on merits after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal also directed the assessee to cooperate diligently in the disposal of these appeals. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the conditions under Section 12A(1)(ba) by filing the return within the time allowed as per the beneficial interpretation of CBDT Circular dated 23.04.2019. Therefore, the exemption under Section 11 should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, which clarified that delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI beyond the statutory due date is not deductible, is binding. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was upheld.

The Tribunal held that interest income from surplus funds deposited with a commercial bank is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P, but interest earned on statutory funds (bad debt and reserve funds) is eligible. Income from holiday homes is to be treated as business income, but not eligible for Section 80P deduction.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not justified without proper verification by the Assessing Officer, especially when the assessee denied any transaction and claimed the TDS credit was a mistake. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for further inquiry.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to verify the assessee's contention that no such transaction occurred and to pass a fresh assessment order after providing a proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to consider the revised balance sheet and correct the inflated figures. The assessee was directed to ensure correct figures were used in subsequent assessment years to avoid benefiting from the error.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals for AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 and AY 2015-16. For AY 2013-14, the appeal was allowed in terms discussed in the cited precedent. For AY 2014-15, the appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decisions in the cases of Amar Singh vs. ACIT and Bharat Singh vs. ACIT, which involved identical facts and co-owners of the same properties. The reasoning was that the issues raised were squarely covered by those precedents. Specifically, for AY 2015-16, the Tribunal noted that the assessment was time-barred, and no incriminating material was found, rendering the Section 153C assessment without jurisdiction. The additions made by the AO for AY 2015-16 were ordered to be deleted. The judgment also indicated that for AY 2014-15, additions were sustained to the extent of Rs. 24,22,066/-, after considering deductions and allowing adjustment of taxes paid for earlier years against taxes due for AY 2014-15, in view of quashed assessments for AY 2009-10 to 2012-13 and sustained additions for AY 2013-14.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice and fair play, the assessee deserved one more opportunity to defend their case on merits before the CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that the assessee's appeals were decided ex parte due to their failure to appear on the scheduled hearing dates. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored all the appeals to the file of the CIT(A). The directions were to decide the appeals on merits after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal also directed the assessee to cooperate diligently in the disposal of these appeals. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that interest income from surplus funds deposited with a commercial bank is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P, but interest earned on statutory funds (bad debt and reserve funds) is eligible. Income from holiday homes is to be treated as business income, but not eligible for Section 80P deduction.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is attracted if the assessee has not earned any exempt income. Following the Delhi High Court's decision, the explanation to Section 14A was held to be prospective.

The tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case after providing proper contact details.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer/CPC is justified. The Supreme Court in the Checkmate Services case has clarified that delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI, even if paid before the return filing due date, is not deductible.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide necessary details to the CIT and the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the issue. Therefore, the CIT's invocation of Section 263 was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in revising the assessment order. The assessee had provided sufficient details and explanations to the AO, and the PCIT's conclusion that the AO failed to verify these claims was not substantiated.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the Supreme Court in 'Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT' has settled the issue regarding delayed deposit of employees' contribution. However, due to a contention of a typographical error in dates, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that the interest income was derived from operational funds required for the society's business activities, not surplus funds. Therefore, it qualifies as business income eligible for deduction under Section 80P.

The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered by its own previous order for AY 2020-21. It reiterated that the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. is applicable, and the delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESI is not deductible.

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the AO, considering the assessee's casual conduct and lack of representation at all stages of the proceedings. The grounds challenging the addition were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to issue the notices as the assessee's returned income was below the pecuniary limit prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that losses arising from derivative trading, as per proviso (d) to Section 43(5) of the Income Tax Act and supported by Supreme Court judgments, are not speculative. Therefore, such losses can be adjusted against normal business income.

The Tribunal deleted the ad-hoc disallowance, noting that the AO did not provide a rational basis for the disallowance and that the assessee had provided a detailed list and comparative analysis of site expenses.