ITAT Kolkata Judgments — September 2023

The Tribunal held that the claim of LTCG was bogus, as the shares were from a penny stock company and the gains were not supported by the company's financials. The decision followed the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in Swati Bajaj.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee provided documents for identity and creditworthiness of creditors, the genuineness of transactions and the purpose of huge cash deposits/withdrawals remained doubtful. Therefore, the Tribunal estimated the income by assuming the transactions were for earning commission.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee provided documents for identity and creditworthiness of creditors, the genuineness of transactions and the purpose of huge cash deposits/withdrawals remained doubtful. Therefore, the Tribunal estimated the income by assuming the transactions were for earning commission.

The Tribunal found that while the identity of the creditors was proven, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions were not established. The Tribunal also noted issues with the lenders' bank accounts and lack of financial statements, leading to the conclusion that the assessee failed to explain the nature and source of the loans.

The ITAT restored all issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard and present necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal mechanically without application of mind, mistaking the current appeal for one against an older assessment order. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The ITAT restored all issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a proper opportunity to be heard and to file necessary documents. The CIT(A) was instructed to pass a speaking order after providing sufficient opportunity.

The ITAT restored all issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a proper opportunity to be heard and to file necessary documents. The CIT(A) was instructed to pass a speaking order after providing sufficient opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the issue was not one of bogus investment but a case of improper accounting where an investment in shares was wrongly classified as 'loans and advances'. The capital loss arising from the sale of these shares was not correctly accounted for.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the genuineness of the purchases. The surrounding circumstances and probabilities pointed against the transactions, and mere documentation was insufficient.

The Tribunal held that the PAN of the appellant should be corrected from AAFCR7565P to AJXPD4840M. This corrigendum will form part of the original order.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee were not maintainable. The reasoning was that the Ld. CIT(A) had already allowed the assessee's appeals by deleting the additions, thus granting full relief. This meant no prejudice was caused to the assessee, and consequently, no cause of action arose for the assessee to file further appeals. The Tribunal noted the assessee's counsel's admission that the appeals were filed merely out of abundant caution to keep the issues alive. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was inclined to dismiss the appeals as not maintainable. The operative direction was to dismiss all the appeals of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee were not maintainable. The reasoning was that the Ld. CIT(A) had already allowed the assessee's appeals by deleting the additions, thus granting full relief. This meant no prejudice was caused to the assessee, and consequently, no cause of action arose for the assessee to file further appeals. The Tribunal noted the assessee's counsel's admission that the appeals were filed merely out of abundant caution to keep the issues alive. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was inclined to dismiss the appeals as not maintainable. The operative direction was to dismiss all the appeals of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee were not maintainable. The reasoning was that the Ld. CIT(A) had already allowed the assessee's appeals by deleting the additions, thus granting full relief. This meant no prejudice was caused to the assessee, and consequently, no cause of action arose for the assessee to file further appeals. The Tribunal noted the assessee's counsel's admission that the appeals were filed merely out of abundant caution to keep the issues alive. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was inclined to dismiss the appeals as not maintainable. The operative direction was to dismiss all the appeals of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the share transactions and the steep rise in share prices. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Swati Bajaj & Others, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the share transactions and the steep rise in share prices. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Swati Bajaj & Others, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals.

The Tribunal restored certain issues to the AO for re-adjudication, including the deduction of excise duty from export turnover and the allowability of leave encashment payments. Other grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments and club expenses were decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee were not maintainable. The reasoning was that the Ld. CIT(A) had already allowed the assessee's appeals by deleting the additions, thus granting full relief. This meant no prejudice was caused to the assessee, and consequently, no cause of action arose for the assessee to file further appeals. The Tribunal noted the assessee's counsel's admission that the appeals were filed merely out of abundant caution to keep the issues alive. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was inclined to dismiss the appeals as not maintainable. The operative direction was to dismiss all the appeals of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the assessee were not maintainable. The reasoning was that the Ld. CIT(A) had already allowed the assessee's appeals by deleting the additions, thus granting full relief. This meant no prejudice was caused to the assessee, and consequently, no cause of action arose for the assessee to file further appeals. The Tribunal noted the assessee's counsel's admission that the appeals were filed merely out of abundant caution to keep the issues alive. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was inclined to dismiss the appeals as not maintainable. The operative direction was to dismiss all the appeals of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 99,72,36,896/- was not entirely justified. While acknowledging the revenue's concern regarding the potential misuse of share transactions for tax avoidance, the Tribunal noted that the assessee's opening balance of investments and purchases during the year were not disputed. The Tribunal also considered the CBDT Circular No. 286/2/2003-IT(Inv) dated October 3, 2003, which advises against making additions solely based on confessional statements obtained under pressure, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence. In light of the facts and the cited circular, the Tribunal found that the addition could not be justified in its entirety. However, considering the revenue's submission that the sale of shares held for several years, without any profit element, is unusual for a business conducted with a profit motive, the Tribunal decided to sustain a net profit element of 5% on the sale consideration. This amounted to Rs. 4,98,61,845/- (5% of Rs. 99,72,36,896/-). The remaining addition of Rs. 94,73,75,051/- was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal respectfully followed a coordinate bench's decision in a group concern's case regarding the application of a 5% profit margin.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 2193 days, finding sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal also found that the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) was not sustainable as it failed to follow the mandatory procedure of stating points of dispute and recording reasons.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not grant proper opportunity to the assessee for the Section 12A application and set aside the order. For the Section 80G application, the Tribunal found that the CIT(E) misinterpreted the proviso and that the assessee's application was not time-barred. Both matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not grant proper opportunity to the assessee for the Section 12A application and set aside the order. For the Section 80G application, the Tribunal found that the CIT(E) misinterpreted the proviso and that the assessee's application was not time-barred. Both matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the reassessment was based on a change of opinion and was time-barred. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity.

The Tribunal held that the foundation for reopening the assessment was incorrect as the alleged income was not claimed by the assessee and had been disclosed as a loss in the original return. Therefore, the reopening proceedings were quashed as bad in law.

The Tribunal found that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present his case. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the addition should be restricted to the profit element on the unreconciled purchases, which was determined to be 2.2% of the amount. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to verify a clerical error in the total income calculation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandatory procedure of stating points in dispute and recording reasons for the conclusion. Therefore, the impugned order was not sustainable and was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Section 80P deduction under Section 143(1)(a) was not permissible for AY 2019-20, as the amendment allowing such prima facie adjustment for belated returns was effective from April 1, 2021. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to a director's personal circumstances. However, it upheld the addition of Rs. 1.36 Crore as unexplained cash credit, finding that the assessee failed to prove the identity and creditworthiness of share applicants and the genuineness of the transaction.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, reducing the disallowance under Section 14A to Rs. 10,163. It also deleted the disallowances related to interest expenditure and general expenses, finding no justification for them.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had duly complied with Section 44AB by furnishing the audit report before the statutory due date. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was deleted.

The Tribunal found that some expenses were indeed personal in nature. However, it reduced the ad hoc disallowance on account of personal expenses to Rs. 5,00,000/-.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had maintained complete date-wise and employee-wise details of travelling and conveyance expenses, along with audited financial statements. Therefore, the ad-hoc disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order, not complying with the CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 regarding mandatory DIN, is invalid and deemed to have never been issued. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the year. Following the Delhi High Court's decision, the disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the TDS mismatch was due to the payer not depositing the deducted TDS by the return filing date. The assessee later offered this amount to tax in the subsequent financial year, thus it was not a case of unaccounted income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and held that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without granting sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee one more effective opportunity.

The Tribunal held that since clause (i) of Section 92BA was omitted by the Finance Act, 2017, it should be considered as if it never existed. Consequently, the reference to the TPO and the adjustments made were deemed invalid and contrary to law.

The Tribunal held that disallowances for PF and ESI contributions are sustained, except for two specific ESI deposits made on the next working day due to holidays, which are allowed. The disallowance for gratuity fund contribution was deleted as it was paid before the due date for filing the return.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. The appeal was admitted for hearing on its merits.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering that the legal grounds challenging the penalty notice were raised for the first time and the assessee did not appear before the lower appellate authority. The assessee is to be granted a sufficient opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid because it was based on a direction from the CIT, not the Assessing Officer's independent belief, and lacked tangible material. The assessment order passed under Section 147 was consequently quashed.

The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not adequately address the issue of the increase in capital. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a proper reconciliation and explanation of the capital account.

The Tribunal restored all issues on merits to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication. This was to allow the assessee to present necessary documents and submissions, ensuring a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that even if the benefit of Section 11 is not granted due to delayed filing, the expenditure incurred for charitable purposes should be allowed to be set off against gross receipts. For AY 2019-20, the return was filed within the due date, making the assessee eligible for the exemption.

The Tribunal held that the CSR expenses were allowable as business expenditure and that the additional depreciation claim was valid. The Tribunal also held that the DDT was payable at the rate prescribed under Section 115-O of the Act, not the lower rate under the India-Singapore Tax Treaty.