ITAT Kolkata Judgments — November 2023

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly discussed the evidence furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after considering all evidences and explanations.

The Tribunal held that the revenue had correctly pointed out an inadvertent typographical error in the PAN of the assessee in the original order. The error was in mentioning the PAN as AAECP4824P instead of the correct PAN, AAECP4824E. Consequently, the Tribunal directed that a corrigendum be issued to modify the order accordingly. The operative direction is to correct the impugned order to reflect the correct PAN as 'AAECP4824E'. No other issues were decided.

The Tribunal held that the revenue had correctly pointed out an inadvertent typographical error in the PAN of the assessee in the original order. The error was in mentioning the PAN as AAECP4824P instead of the correct PAN, AAECP4824E. Consequently, the Tribunal directed that a corrigendum be issued to modify the order accordingly. The operative direction is to correct the impugned order to reflect the correct PAN as 'AAECP4824E'. No other issues were decided.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on grounds related to TDS on professional fees, land revenue tax, and management fees on PMS. It also deleted the disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A. However, the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was restricted, leading to partial relief.