ITAT Kolkata Judgments — December 2023

The Tribunal held that mere execution of a joint development agreement does not constitute a transfer of land under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, as possession was not transferred and ownership remained with the assessee. Therefore, capital gains were wrongly computed.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were done without application of mind and in a casual manner. Therefore, the reopening of assessment was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the accumulation under Section 11(1)(a) should be computed on the gross receipt of the assessee, not on the net receipt. Consequently, the appeals were allowed based on this interpretation.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of an Investigation Wing report without further independent verification by the AO. Since the AO did not conduct independent investigation into the alleged client code modification, the addition was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the accumulation under Section 11(1)(a) should be computed on the gross receipt of the assessee, not on the net receipt. Consequently, the assessee was entitled to claim exemption on this basis.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee, Basil International Limited, is dismissed. This decision was based on two primary reasons: firstly, the consistent non-appearance of the assessee and its authorized representative on multiple hearing dates, despite notices being sent through RPAD and email. Secondly, the appeal was found to be time-barred by 25 days, and no petition for condonation of delay was filed on record. The Tribunal concluded that there was a violation of Section 253(3) of the Act, and since the appeal was not filed in time and the assessee did not pursue it, the appeal was dismissed as infructuous. No decision was made on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus under Section 68 by filing all necessary documents to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share application money. The Assessing Officer failed to prove otherwise.

The Tribunal held that the AO made additions without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were relied upon. The assessee had provided complete details to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicant, which was a group concern.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal but, considering the ex-parte order by the CIT(A), restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to produce all necessary documents.

The Tribunal found that there was no proof that the appeal against the Section 143(1)(a) order had been disposed of. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s finding was incorrect, and the issues were not adjudicated on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessment orders were barred by limitation as they were framed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153B of the Act, making the subsequent Section 263 proceedings void.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessment orders were barred by limitation as they were framed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153B of the Act, making the subsequent Section 263 proceedings void.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessment orders were barred by limitation as they were framed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153B of the Act, making the subsequent Section 263 proceedings void.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessment orders were barred by limitation as they were framed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153B of the Act, making the subsequent Section 263 proceedings void.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for non-appearance and restored the appeals to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to provide an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for non-appearance and restored the appeals to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to provide an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessment orders were barred by limitation as they were framed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153B of the Act, making the subsequent Section 263 proceedings void.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessment orders were barred by limitation as they were framed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153B of the Act, making the subsequent Section 263 proceedings void.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessment orders were barred by limitation as they were framed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153B of the Act, making the subsequent Section 263 proceedings void.

The Tribunal held that the market value of power supplied by captive power plants to industrial units should be computed by considering the rate at which the SEB supplied power to industrial consumers, as this represents the open market rate. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the impugned additions under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of the search action at the assessee's premises. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., which clarified that in cases of search, only pending assessment/reassessment proceedings abate. If no incriminating material is found during the search in the case of a completed/unabated assessment, the AO cannot make additions under Section 153A. The Tribunal noted that in the present case, neither assessment proceedings under Section 153C nor any other assessment proceedings were initiated or pending on the date of the search. Therefore, no assessment stood abated. Consequently, the assessment years under consideration fell within the scope of unabated assessment years. As per the law laid down in Abhisar Buildwell, the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions without incriminating material for such unabated years. Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the impugned assessment orders and deleted the consequential additions. Both appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the impugned additions under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of the search action at the assessee's premises. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., which clarified that in cases of search, only pending assessment/reassessment proceedings abate. If no incriminating material is found during the search in the case of a completed/unabated assessment, the AO cannot make additions under Section 153A. The Tribunal noted that in the present case, neither assessment proceedings under Section 153C nor any other assessment proceedings were initiated or pending on the date of the search. Therefore, no assessment stood abated. Consequently, the assessment years under consideration fell within the scope of unabated assessment years. As per the law laid down in Abhisar Buildwell, the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions without incriminating material for such unabated years. Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the impugned assessment orders and deleted the consequential additions. Both appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the market value of power supplied by captive power plants to industrial units should be computed by considering the rate at which the SEB supplied power to industrial consumers, as this represents the open market rate. The revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the impugned additions under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of the search action at the assessee's premises. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd., which clarified that in cases of search, only pending assessment/reassessment proceedings abate. If no incriminating material is found during the search in the case of a completed/unabated assessment, the AO cannot make additions under Section 153A. The Tribunal noted that in the present case, neither assessment proceedings under Section 153C nor any other assessment proceedings were initiated or pending on the date of the search. Therefore, no assessment stood abated. Consequently, the assessment years under consideration fell within the scope of unabated assessment years. As per the law laid down in Abhisar Buildwell, the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions without incriminating material for such unabated years. Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the impugned assessment orders and deleted the consequential additions. Both appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that deduction under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI cannot be claimed, even if deposited before the due date of filing the return, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that the market value of power supplied by captive power plants to industrial units should be benchmarked against the rate at which SEBs supply power to industrial consumers, not against the rates at which distribution companies procure power from generation companies.

The Tribunal followed its previous decisions for the assessee's own case and estimated the net profit at 6.75% on the contractual turnover. The additions were sustained only to the extent of the difference between the estimated profit and the declared profit.

The Tribunal followed its previous decisions for the assessee's own case and estimated the net profit at 6.75% on the contractual turnover. The additions were sustained only to the extent of the difference between the estimated profit and the declared profit.

The Tribunal held that the share premium was received from the assessee's group/sister concerns. After considering the details provided and the remand report, the CIT(A) was convinced about the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants, justifying the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to discharge the burden of inquiry by not summoning the beneficiary companies. The assessee had taken all reasonable steps to demonstrate the fraudulent misuse of his account.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law because the department failed to produce the approval of the competent authority under Section 151, despite multiple opportunities. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The tribunal found merit in the assessee's ground regarding the ex-parte order. The CIT(A) had merely reiterated the assessment order without dealing with the submissions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the Assessing Officer's order was cryptic and lacked justification for the addition, as there was no evidence of increased share capital or premium received during the year.

The Tribunal acknowledged the difficulties faced by the assessee due to the pandemic. It directed the Assessing Officer to examine the assessee's explanation for the delayed deposits and allow the deduction for periods where incapacity/impossibility of performance can be demonstrated.

The Tribunal held that the reasoning of the lower authorities for denying the deduction was not supported by the provisions of Section 80G. Following previous decisions, the Tribunal allowed the deduction claimed under Section 80G.

The Tribunal held that the testing fees were revenue expenditure incurred in the normal course of business for product suitability and not capital expenditure. However, the disallowance for delayed PF/ESI contributions was upheld based on the Supreme Court ruling in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal held that no fresh investment in unlisted securities was made during the year, and the reduction in investment was due to sales, thus deleting the addition. It also found that the assessee demonstrated the source of fresh loans and advances, leading to the deletion of that addition. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted due to the absence of exempt income.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to provide any basis or discussion to prove the transactions were bogus or that undisclosed income was introduced. The orders were deemed non-speaking and devoid of merits.

The Tribunal held that the agricultural land sold by the assessee was not a capital asset as defined under Section 2(14) of the Act, and thus the capital gain arising from its sale was exempt from tax. The Tribunal also noted that even if it were a capital asset, the assessee would be eligible for exemption under Section 54B.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing substantial documentary evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions. The CIT(A) was satisfied with the evidence, and the revenue failed to provide cogent reasons to disagree.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) who deleted the addition. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the loans, including repayment, and that the AO's addition was solely based on the statement of an entry operator without confronting the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was framed by an officer without jurisdiction, making the entire assessment proceedings a nullity. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal followed its previous decisions for the assessee's own case and estimated the net profit at 6.75% on the contractual turnover. The additions were sustained only to the extent of the difference between the estimated profit and the declared profit.

The Tribunal held that the payments made to the JV partner for executing the contract were the cost of the project, not an expenditure incurred by the JV. It also noted that a similar issue in a prior assessment year was decided in favour of the assessee and accepted by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the payments made to the JV partner for executing the contract were the cost of the project, not an expenditure incurred by the JV. It also noted that a similar issue in a prior assessment year was decided in favour of the assessee and accepted by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the payments made to the JV partner for executing the contract were the cost of the project, not an expenditure incurred by the JV. It also noted that a similar issue in a prior assessment year was decided in favour of the assessee and accepted by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution was not sustainable as it did not follow the procedure of determining points of dispute and recording reasons as required by Section 250(6). The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the amount paid was not a penalty for an offence but interest on delayed payments to IOC Ltd., which is a normal business practice. Therefore, it is an allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1).

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the discrepancies were due to re-grouping of advances and that the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the investors were established. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.