ITAT Kolkata Judgments — April 2024

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided substantial documentation, including ITRs, PANs, financial statements, bank statements, and details of the source of funds for the share subscribers. The addition was made in a non-speaking and mechanical manner by the AO.

The Tribunal found that no proper notice was served on the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that mere uploading of an order on the portal is not sufficient service. It also noted that the CIT(Appeals) failed to follow the procedure under Section 250(6) by not deciding the appeal on merit after perusing the assessment records.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had withdrawn a substantial amount of cash from his bank account prior to the deposit, and the source of these funds was not questioned. Therefore, the cash deposit was considered explained.

The Tribunal held that the nature of the payment (compensatory vs. penal) is a question of fact that requires detailed examination and cannot be decided under the summary processing provisions of section 143(1). Such disallowance is not sustainable in a 143(1) proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) passed ex-parte orders violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits.

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

The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied on an estimated basis, which is not correct in law, especially when the addition itself was based on estimation and the ITAT had already granted significant relief. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to claim a deduction under Section 80M as the dividend was distributed to shareholders before the due date for filing the return of income. The deduction allowed was limited to the amount of dividend distributed.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the facts. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment to properly examine the entire transaction.

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

The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employee's PF contribution beyond the due date specified in the relevant Act is not eligible for deduction, citing the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. It also held that interest paid on delayed TDS is not an allowable expenditure.

The Tribunal held that delayed deposit of employee's PF contribution beyond the due date specified in the relevant Act is not eligible for deduction, citing the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. It also held that interest paid on delayed TDS is not an allowable expenditure.

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided for the significant delay were not cogent and did not constitute sufficient cause for condonation. The Tribunal emphasized that the law of limitation is substantive and condonation of delay requires judicious exercise of discretion with valid reasons.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the reason provided by the assessee was bonafide and not intentional, considering the pandemic situation. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the denial of foreign tax credit solely on the ground of belated filing of Form 67 is incorrect. Filing of Form 67 is considered a directory requirement, not a mandatory one that leads to disallowance.

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

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to interest under Section 244A from April 1, 2017, to the date of refund, as the refund was out of TDS and the original return was filed on time. The CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the issue.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) passed ex-parte orders violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal has confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanation for the unexplained cash.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte 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 held that Section 68 applies to any sum credited in the books, regardless of whether it was received through banking channels or as a journal entry. The CIT(A)'s deletion based solely on the lack of cash receipt was found to be without merit.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's ground that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper adjudication. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form No. 67 is procedural and directory, not mandatory. Merely delaying the filing of Form No. 67 should not preclude the assessee from claiming FTC, especially when filed before the assessment is completed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) should have considered the grounds of appeal on merits and provided reasons for the decision.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form-67 is directory and not mandatory. Therefore, the denial of foreign tax credit merely for the delay in filing Form-67 was unjustified, as all other conditions for the claim were met.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's ground that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found it necessary to set aside the issue to the AO for re-consideration. The AO is directed to pass a speaking order on the claim after considering all submissions and affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer, while accepting the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981, failed to provide the benefit of indexation. Applying indexation to the accepted cost resulted in an indexed cost higher than the sale consideration, thus leading to a capital loss.

The Tribunal held that the application for final registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) was not premature and restored it for consideration. For Section 80G, it was held that the application was within the permissible period, and the rejection was set aside.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide proper opportunities for the assessee to present their case through both electronic and physical modes.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revision jurisdiction was wrongly exercised as the limited scrutiny was not converted to complete scrutiny. Consequently, the subsequent assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding unutilized government grants for VRS expenses was covered by previous High Court decisions in favour of the assessee. Similarly, mine development expenditures were also held to be allowable revenue expenditure based on prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary jurisdiction was invalidly invoked. The AO had examined the issues and taken a plausible view, which the PCIT could not substitute with his own. The PCIT also failed to record specific findings on how the AO's order was erroneous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to bonafide reasons and decided to adjudicate the appeal on its merits. The CIT(Exemption) had rejected the application on technical grounds without considering it on merit.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding unutilized government grants for VRS expenses was covered by previous High Court decisions in favour of the assessee. Similarly, mine development expenditures were also held to be allowable revenue expenditure based on prior rulings.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's submissions. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the assessing officer to examine the effect of the NCLT order on the tax liability. The revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the assessee's cross-objections were dismissed as infructuous.

The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, directing the AO to verify the utilization of exempt income for asset acquisition. However, other grounds were dismissed. The assessee is further appealing this decision.

The Tribunal held that as per the amalgamation scheme, all taxes including TDS belonging to the transferor company from the appointed date are to be treated as belonging to the transferee company. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the TDS credit.

The Tribunal held that as per the amalgamation scheme, all taxes including TDS belonging to the transferor company from the appointed date are to be treated as belonging to the transferee company. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the TDS credit.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the assessing officer to examine the effect of the NCLT order on the tax liability. The revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the assessee's cross-objections were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is unjustified when additions are made purely on an estimate basis without specific findings of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was invalid as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Pr. CIT cannot substitute his view for the Assessing Officer's view if the latter is correct based on available records.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was not served within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to frame the reassessment order, rendering it void.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding unutilized government grants for VRS expenses was covered by previous High Court decisions in favour of the assessee. Similarly, mine development expenditures were also held to be allowable revenue expenditure based on prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the issue regarding unutilized government grants for VRS expenses was covered by previous High Court decisions in favour of the assessee. Similarly, mine development expenditures were also held to be allowable revenue expenditure based on prior rulings.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not have the power to disallow a deduction under Section 80P while processing the return under Section 143(1) for the assessment year in question. This power was granted to the AO only from April 1, 2021, by the Finance Act, 2021.