ITAT Kolkata Judgments — February 2024

The Tribunal restored the matter of final registration under Section 12AB to the CIT(Exemption) for consideration of the revised application, directing that the original filing date be considered. For Section 80G, the Tribunal found the application was not belated as per CBDT circular and directed the CIT(Exemption) to admit the application and decide on merits.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 67,94,000/- for cash deposits during demonetization was not called for as the assessee had sufficient cash balance. It also deleted the addition of Rs. 49,11,694/- for estimated profit on undisclosed sales, stating it was based on surmises. The addition of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- under Section 68 was also deleted as the transaction was explained as an advance for a hotel company.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing all necessary documents to the AO. The AO's addition solely based on non-compliance with summons, without examining the provided evidence, was incorrect.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention and decided to remand the issue back to the AO for fresh examination. The AO was directed to re-examine the matter after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to produce necessary documents.

The Tribunal found that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the AO made additions based solely on the Directorate of Investigation's report and a retracted statement, without conducting independent inquiry or corroborating evidence. The AO did not examine the evidence filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present its case due to inaccessibility of premises. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present its case due to inaccessibility of premises. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The assessee's counsel, on instructions from the client, withdrew the appeal before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the AO had taken a plausible view by assessing income at 1.5% of total credits, supported by case law. The Pr. CIT cannot substitute his view for the AO's if the AO's view is considered and reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's application for final approval was within the limitation period after obtaining provisional registration. The rejection by the CIT(Exemption) was based on a misinterpretation of the relevant provisions and CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The additional evidence filed by the assessee was accepted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) rejected the application without properly considering the documents already submitted by the assessee and denied a reasonable opportunity for hearing. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel was not pressing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal restored the matter of final registration under Section 12AB to the CIT(Exemption) for consideration of the revised application, directing that the original filing date be considered. For Section 80G, the Tribunal found the application was not belated as per CBDT circular and directed the CIT(Exemption) to admit the application and decide on merits.

The Tribunal found that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including ITRs, audited accounts, and bank statements of the subscribers, to justify the share premium. The authorities below failed to point out any specific defect in the evidence provided.

The Tribunal held that appellate authorities have the power to admit new claims, even if not made in the original or revised return, to ascertain correct tax liability. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the claim.

The Tribunal held that the AO had already disallowed the deduction in the original assessment order. Therefore, the subsequent rectification order to add the same amount constituted a double addition and was uncalled for. The Tribunal quashed the rectification order.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that the AO received the Dispute Resolution Panel's (DRP) directions on October 3, 2018. As per Section 144C(13), the AO had one month from the end of that month to complete the assessment, making the deadline November 30, 2018. Since the assessment order was passed on December 6, 2018, it was barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that the AO received the Dispute Resolution Panel's (DRP) directions on October 3, 2018. As per Section 144C(13), the AO had one month from the end of that month to complete the assessment, making the deadline November 30, 2018. Since the assessment order was passed on December 6, 2018, it was barred by limitation.

The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and considering the available material, found it necessary to determine the correct income of the assessee. For Ground No. 1, concerning the addition made towards donation payments, the Tribunal directed the AO to revisit the issue by providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and re-examining the issue afresh in accordance with law. For Ground No. 2, relating to the addition for prior year expenses, the Tribunal found it necessary to remand the issue back to the file of the AO after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in accordance with law. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's application for final registration was not time-barred as it was filed after obtaining provisional approval. The commencement of activities prior to provisional approval does not preclude the assessee from applying for final registration.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had conducted necessary verification regarding the property purchase during the assessment proceedings. The AO had examined the ledger, bank entries, and received explanations from the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the information received by the AO was insufficient to form a belief that the assessee's income had escaped assessment. The AO did not conduct independent enquiries and relied solely on borrowed satisfaction.

The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and considering the available material, found it necessary to determine the correct income of the assessee. For Ground 1, concerning the addition of Rs. 20,83,818/- on account of donation, the Tribunal directed the AO to revisit the issue by providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to examine the issue afresh in accordance with the law. For Ground 2, regarding the non-consideration of carry forward business losses of Rs. 69,14,516/-, the Tribunal found it necessary to remand the issue back to the AO. The AO was directed to give the assessee a necessary opportunity of being heard and to reconsider the issue in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal agreed that since the reopening of assessment was held invalid by the CIT(A), the consequential assessment order is quashed. Any findings on merits by the CIT(A) are rendered academic.

The Tribunal held that the use of cash profit margin is justified for benchmarking under TNMM, especially for a newly set-up company with high depreciation. It directed the removal of certain functionally different comparables and the acceptance of others, remitting the matter for recalculation of TP adjustment.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued after the limitation period and without complying with the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. Therefore, the notice and subsequent proceedings were void ab initio.

The Tribunal found that some PF/ESI payments were made within the prescribed limits. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the AO for re-examination, allowing the claim for payments made within due dates.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to present evidence to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to call for a remand report from the AO after the assessee files the details, and then decide the issues on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was barred by limitation as it was passed after the prescribed due date of December 31, 2019. The lack of a DIN number further supported the conclusion that the order was not passed within the stipulated time. The Tribunal also found that the addition made on merits regarding unexplained expenditure was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s enhancement of the disallowance for late deposit of employees' PF contribution was incorrect. It found that Rule 8 of the IT Rules applies to the assessee, which has a tea garden and manufacturing unit. The AO's initial disallowance of 40% was deemed correct. The Tribunal relied on the ITAT decision in Stewart Holl (India) Limited vs ADIT. Consequently, the enhancement of Rs. 59,99,501/- made by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted, sustaining the AO's order on this issue. Regarding the loss on land disposal, the Tribunal found it necessary to remand the issue back to the AO for re-examination, with a direction to provide an appropriate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition on currency derivatives, noting the director's retracted statement and lack of corroborative evidence. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the capital gains addition, agreeing that the safe harbour rule under Section 50C was applicable.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding Section 35(2AB) by sustaining a reduced disallowance, as Form 3CL was later obtained. For the lease premium, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground, following a High Court judgment in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the use of cash profit margin is justified for benchmarking under TNMM, especially for a newly set-up company with high depreciation. It directed the removal of certain functionally different comparables and the acceptance of others, remitting the matter for recalculation of TP adjustment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s enhancement of the disallowance for late deposit of employees' PF contribution was incorrect. It found that Rule 8 of the IT Rules applies to the assessee, which has a tea garden and manufacturing unit. The AO's initial disallowance of 40% was deemed correct. The Tribunal relied on the ITAT decision in Stewart Holl (India) Limited vs ADIT. Consequently, the enhancement of Rs. 59,99,501/- made by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted, sustaining the AO's order on this issue. Regarding the loss on land disposal, the Tribunal found it necessary to remand the issue back to the AO for re-examination, with a direction to provide an appropriate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had erroneously dismissed an appeal. The Tribunal directed the CIT(Appeals) to decide on merit the admissibility of the deduction for the interim payment to NCWA.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of share transactions. It also noted that no exempt income was earned, making the Section 14A disallowance unjustified. The Tribunal set aside the additions made by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, banking transactions, and creditworthiness of the shareholders. The non-appearance of directors under Section 131 notice alone was not sufficient grounds for addition under Section 68.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present its case and file relevant material. The assessee was directed not to seek adjournments without reasonable cause.

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the PCIT under Section 127(1) was invalid as it transferred the case outside his jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the Midnapur AO was without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the rates of income tax and surcharge as amended by the Finance Act 2021 are applicable for Assessment Year 2021-22. Therefore, the surcharge on dividend income should be capped at 15%.

The Tribunal held that since the Section 14A disallowance was deleted, it could not be considered for computing book profit under Section 115JB. Consequently, the addition made under Section 154 was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of the share trading loss was uncalled for. It found that the assessee had provided all relevant documents, and the addition was based on a preponderance of probabilities without direct evidence or opportunity for cross-examination.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the issues afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders passed by the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the issues afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF/ESI, if not deposited by the statutory due date, is not eligible for deduction as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. This decision follows the Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.