ITAT Kolkata Judgments — June 2023

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make necessary submissions.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without providing proper notice and opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the order was set aside, and the appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient reasons for the late filing. It also held that the ex-parte orders passed by the authorities below were not on merits and restored the appeals to the file of the AO.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and did not pass a speaking order. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was a non-speaking order, failing to address the issues raised. Therefore, both the CIT(A)'s and AO's orders were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient reasons for the late filing. It also held that the ex-parte orders passed by the authorities below were not on merits and restored the appeals to the file of the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the Section 80IC deduction and delete the TDS disallowance, relying on previous coordinate bench decisions. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's appeal regarding commission payments, finding no basis for partial disallowance.

The Tribunal allowed depreciation at 30% on trucks, following a previous year's order where the price charged was considered composite. The Tribunal also deleted the disallowance for petty cash payments, finding that individual payments did not exceed Rs. 20,000 and were supported by vouchers.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without giving the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was invalid as it failed to strike off the redundant limb, thus depriving the assessee of a specific charge to respond to. The penalty order, based on this invalid notice, was also deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had complied with the provisions of Section 115O(1) by paying the DDT within 14 days of declaring the dividend for AY 2015-16. The credit was not given in subsequent years.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the assessee's illness. It was held that the impugned orders were ex-parte and the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's revised return filed in response to the notice u/s 148 was within the limitation period as per the Supreme Court's directions. Since the assessee disclosed the correct income in this return, no penalty is leviable.

The Tribunal held that the original return was filed within the due date. Since the necessary documents were filed before the assessment order, the claim under Section 80IC could not be denied. The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the assessee's illness. It was held that the impugned orders were ex-parte and the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's revised return filed in response to the notice u/s 148 was within the limitation period as per the Supreme Court's directions. Since the assessee disclosed the correct income in this return, no penalty is leviable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the liberal interpretation of "sufficient cause" and the need for substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte due to non-service of notices.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished sufficient evidence regarding the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the transactions. The AO had not commented on these evidences, and the CIT(A)'s order lacked detailed reasoning.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the Section 80IC deduction and delete the TDS disallowance, relying on previous coordinate bench decisions. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's appeal regarding commission payments, finding no basis for partial disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's exercise of revision jurisdiction was not justified as the issue was debatable and the funds were used for development purposes. The impugned revision order passed by the PCIT was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted a detailed enquiry into the cash deposits and the source thereof, and had made an addition based on discrepancies. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's invocation of Section 263 was not justified as the AO had taken a permissible view after due diligence.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, requires an assessee to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the nature and source of any sum credited in their books. This explanation must satisfy three ingredients: the identity of the share applicants, the genuineness of the transaction, and the credit-worthiness of the share applicants. The Tribunal noted that difficulty arises in applying these conditions to specific facts. It referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Novadaya Castles (P.) Ltd., which distinguished cases where assessees provided documents like PANs, bank details, and affidavits, but the AO made no further inquiry, from cases where the shareholder company was a shell entity with no income but made substantial investments. The Tribunal also cited the Delhi High Court's observations in CIT v. Fair Finvest Ltd., where it was held that providing PANs, affidavits, and bank details established the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of share applicants, and the AO's failure to proceed further, merely adding amounts due to the absence of directors for physical appearance, was questioned. The judgment implies that the CIT(A)'s deletion was based on such considerations, and the Revenue's appeals are likely to be decided based on whether these conditions were met.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, requires an assessee to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the nature and source of any sum credited in their books. This explanation must satisfy three ingredients: the identity of the share applicants, the genuineness of the transaction, and the credit-worthiness of the share applicants. The Tribunal noted that difficulty arises in applying these conditions to specific facts. It referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Novadaya Castles (P.) Ltd., which distinguished cases where assessees provided documents like PANs, bank details, and affidavits, but the AO made no further inquiry, from cases where the shareholder company was a shell entity with no income but made substantial investments. The Tribunal also cited the Delhi High Court's observations in CIT v. Fair Finvest Ltd., where it was held that providing PANs, affidavits, and bank details established the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of share applicants, and the AO's failure to proceed further, merely adding amounts due to the absence of directors for physical appearance, was questioned. The judgment implies that the CIT(A)'s deletion was based on such considerations, and the Revenue's appeals are likely to be decided based on whether these conditions were met.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, requires an assessee to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the nature and source of any sum credited in their books. This explanation must satisfy three ingredients: the identity of the share applicants, the genuineness of the transaction, and the credit-worthiness of the share applicants. The Tribunal noted that difficulty arises in applying these conditions to specific facts. It referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Novadaya Castles (P.) Ltd., which distinguished cases where assessees provided documents like PANs, bank details, and affidavits, but the AO made no further inquiry, from cases where the shareholder company was a shell entity with no income but made substantial investments. The Tribunal also cited the Delhi High Court's observations in CIT v. Fair Finvest Ltd., where it was held that providing PANs, affidavits, and bank details established the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of share applicants, and the AO's failure to proceed further, merely adding amounts due to the absence of directors for physical appearance, was questioned. The judgment implies that the CIT(A)'s deletion was based on such considerations, and the Revenue's appeals are likely to be decided based on whether these conditions were met.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. It also noted that the Assessing Officer made the addition without proper investigation, ignoring evidence provided by the assessee, and that the justification for charging share premium is a commercial decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being the Managing Director and principal officer of the company, was responsible for deducting and depositing TDS. Since the TDS was never deposited due to the assessee's own default, he could not claim credit for it. The contention regarding corporate insolvency was also rejected as it occurred after the relevant financial years.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred by applying the conditions of Section 54F to a deduction claimed under Section 54. The conditions of Section 54F regarding owning multiple residential houses are not applicable to Section 54.

The Tribunal found that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition. It relied on a previous ITAT decision in the assessee's own case and the Supreme Court's ruling in Reliance Industries Ltd., which states that if interest-free funds are available, it's presumed they were used for investments.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of property, as per Section 2(47) of the Act, was completed when the assessee took possession in 2013, prior to the applicability of the amended Section 56(2)(vii). Therefore, no deemed gift income is taxable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked analytical consideration of the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the order was set aside and the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh analytical review of the GST payment challans.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not file the return online as required, a notice under Section 143(2) was not necessary. However, the Tribunal restored the issue of whether the credits were business receipts to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, requires an assessee to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the nature and source of any sum credited in their books. This explanation must satisfy three ingredients: the identity of the share applicants, the genuineness of the transaction, and the credit-worthiness of the share applicants. The Tribunal noted that difficulty arises in applying these conditions to specific facts. It referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Novadaya Castles (P.) Ltd., which distinguished cases where assessees provided documents like PANs, bank details, and affidavits, but the AO made no further inquiry, from cases where the shareholder company was a shell entity with no income but made substantial investments. The Tribunal also cited the Delhi High Court's observations in CIT v. Fair Finvest Ltd., where it was held that providing PANs, affidavits, and bank details established the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of share applicants, and the AO's failure to proceed further, merely adding amounts due to the absence of directors for physical appearance, was questioned. The judgment implies that the CIT(A)'s deletion was based on such considerations, and the Revenue's appeals are likely to be decided based on whether these conditions were met.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being the Managing Director and principal officer of the company, was responsible for deducting and depositing TDS. Since the TDS was never deposited due to the assessee's own default, he could not claim credit for it. The contention regarding corporate insolvency was also rejected as it occurred after the relevant financial years.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, requires an assessee to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the nature and source of any sum credited in their books. This explanation must satisfy three ingredients: the identity of the share applicants, the genuineness of the transaction, and the credit-worthiness of the share applicants. The Tribunal noted that difficulty arises in applying these conditions to specific facts. It referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Novadaya Castles (P.) Ltd., which distinguished cases where assessees provided documents like PANs, bank details, and affidavits, but the AO made no further inquiry, from cases where the shareholder company was a shell entity with no income but made substantial investments. The Tribunal also cited the Delhi High Court's observations in CIT v. Fair Finvest Ltd., where it was held that providing PANs, affidavits, and bank details established the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of share applicants, and the AO's failure to proceed further, merely adding amounts due to the absence of directors for physical appearance, was questioned. The judgment implies that the CIT(A)'s deletion was based on such considerations, and the Revenue's appeals are likely to be decided based on whether these conditions were met.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, requires an assessee to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the nature and source of any sum credited in their books. This explanation must satisfy three ingredients: the identity of the share applicants, the genuineness of the transaction, and the credit-worthiness of the share applicants. The Tribunal noted that difficulty arises in applying these conditions to specific facts. It referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Novadaya Castles (P.) Ltd., which distinguished cases where assessees provided documents like PANs, bank details, and affidavits, but the AO made no further inquiry, from cases where the shareholder company was a shell entity with no income but made substantial investments. The Tribunal also cited the Delhi High Court's observations in CIT v. Fair Finvest Ltd., where it was held that providing PANs, affidavits, and bank details established the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of share applicants, and the AO's failure to proceed further, merely adding amounts due to the absence of directors for physical appearance, was questioned. The judgment implies that the CIT(A)'s deletion was based on such considerations, and the Revenue's appeals are likely to be decided based on whether these conditions were met.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, requires an assessee to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the nature and source of any sum credited in their books. This explanation must satisfy three ingredients: the identity of the share applicants, the genuineness of the transaction, and the credit-worthiness of the share applicants. The Tribunal noted that difficulty arises in applying these conditions to specific facts. It referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Novadaya Castles (P.) Ltd., which distinguished cases where assessees provided documents like PANs, bank details, and affidavits, but the AO made no further inquiry, from cases where the shareholder company was a shell entity with no income but made substantial investments. The Tribunal also cited the Delhi High Court's observations in CIT v. Fair Finvest Ltd., where it was held that providing PANs, affidavits, and bank details established the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of share applicants, and the AO's failure to proceed further, merely adding amounts due to the absence of directors for physical appearance, was questioned. The judgment implies that the CIT(A)'s deletion was based on such considerations, and the Revenue's appeals are likely to be decided based on whether these conditions were met.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte, but also noted that the assessee did not provide sufficient opportunity for representation. However, considering the legal issue of non-provision of reasons recorded and Section 151 approval, the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It reduced the disallowance under Section 14A to Rs. 2,22,864 and the interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) to Rs. 47,08,373, based on the application of interest-bearing funds to non-business assets.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT must independently ascertain if the AO's order is erroneous by conducting necessary inquiries. Since the Pr. CIT did not fully establish the error and instead directed the AO to decide, the matter was remitted back to the Pr. CIT.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid due to the Assessing Officer's failure to properly dispose of the assessee's objections and inconsistencies in the approval process. The assessment order was quashed on these legal grounds.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 37,13,674/- was a double addition because the assessee had already suo motu disallowed portions of this amount in subsequent assessment years, aligning with the change in accounting policy.

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

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded their jurisdiction by raising a ground that was already settled in favour of the assessee and had attained finality. Therefore, the disallowance made by the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the non-presentation of the appeal within the prescribed period. It was held that the Principal Commissioner's exercise of power under Section 263 was bad in law as the Assessing Officer had already made detailed inquiries and applied his mind.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' and the absence of mala fide intention on the part of the assessee. The Tribunal also deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68, finding the transactions with sundry creditors to be genuine and explained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11 for AY 2018-19. This is because the assessment proceedings were pending when registration under Section 12AA was granted, and the proviso to Section 12A(2) allows for retrospective application in such cases.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to diligently participate in the proceedings, and the CIT(A) was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income earned. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to the actual dividend income earned by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had already offered the entire amount as speculation profit in the revised computation and paid taxes thereon, a further addition for the same amount was not justified. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was deleted.