ITAT Kolkata Judgments — May 2024

The tribunal directed the AO/TPO to recompute the interest rate on loan funds considering LIBOR/EUROIBOR as comparables. It also remitted one ground of appeal back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present its case.

The tribunal directed the AO/TPO to recompute the interest rate on loan funds considering LIBOR/EUROIBOR as comparables. It also remitted one ground of appeal back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the calculation of the tax sought to be evaded was disputed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the assessee's submissions regarding gross rent payable and recalculate the penalty.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, consisting of cash memos, sale register, purchase register, and cash book. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a fresh examination of the issue based on these evidences.

The Tribunal found that the calculation of tax sought to be evaded was disputed due to differing figures of rent payable. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for recalculation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention of filing estimated figures with the bank to avoid penal interest was acceptable, especially since the AO had not rejected the books of accounts. The affidavits supporting this claim were not doubted.

The Tribunal held that the last will clearly defined the beneficiaries and their equal rights to the trust's income. Therefore, the tax should be computed at normal rates and not the maximum marginal rate.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and remanded the case back to the CIT(A). This was done to allow the assessee to present documentary evidence and for a fresh decision after hearing the assessee, for the ends of justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a real estate developer, intended to use the property as stock-in-trade. The property was treated as stock-in-trade from the next financial year, and no addition was made in the case of the co-owner under similar circumstances. Therefore, the addition was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received for the premature termination of the hotel operation agreements, caused by external factors like UN sanctions, constituted a capital receipt. This receipt was not taxable as it did not arise in the ordinary course of the assessee's business.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to file fresh applications. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to decide these fresh applications in accordance with the CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2024.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal if they had any future grievances.

The Tribunal found that the calculation of tax sought to be evaded was disputed due to differing figures of rent payable. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for recalculation.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as it was based on borrowed satisfaction and vague information without proper correlation with the assessee's records. The additions made on merits were also not sustainable due to lack of evidence and violation of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention of filing estimated figures with the bank to avoid penal interest was acceptable, especially since the AO had not rejected the books of accounts. The affidavits supporting this claim were not doubted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention of filing estimated figures with the bank to avoid penal interest was acceptable, especially since the AO had not rejected the books of accounts. The affidavits supporting this claim were not doubted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's contention of filing estimated figures with the bank to avoid penal interest was acceptable, especially since the AO had not rejected the books of accounts. The affidavits supporting this claim were not doubted.

The Tribunal found that the calculation of the tax sought to be evaded was disputed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the assessee's submissions regarding gross rent payable and recalculate the penalty.

The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw their appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the last will clearly defined the beneficiaries and their equal rights to the trust's income. Therefore, the tax should be computed at normal rates and not the maximum marginal rate.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received for the premature termination of the hotel operation agreements, caused by external factors like UN sanctions, constituted a capital receipt. This receipt was not taxable as it did not arise in the ordinary course of the assessee's business.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received for the premature termination of the hotel operation agreements, caused by external factors like UN sanctions, constituted a capital receipt. This receipt was not taxable as it did not arise in the ordinary course of the assessee's business.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh appeal if they had any future grievances.

The Tribunal found that the calculation of the tax sought to be evaded was disputed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the assessee's submissions regarding gross rent payable and recalculate the penalty.

The tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case and explain the source of bank deposits.

The ITAT restored all issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after considering the assessee's submissions and documents, providing adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, granting the assessee liberty to file fresh applications. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to decide these fresh applications in accordance with the CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2024.

The Tribunal found that the calculation of the tax sought to be evaded was disputed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the assessee's submissions regarding gross rent payable and recalculate the penalty.

The Tribunal found that the calculation of the tax sought to be evaded was disputed by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the assessee's submissions regarding gross rent payable and recalculate the penalty.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without analyzing the facts or adjudicating the issues, which is contrary to the mandate of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the explanation to Section 14A inserted by the Finance Bill, 2022, is prospective. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. This was in light of a CBDT circular that extended the deadline for filing specific forms.

The Tribunal condoned the 20-day delay, holding that the reasons provided by the assessee were bona fide and that substantial justice should be advanced. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that for computing disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii), only the average value of investments yielding non-taxable income should be considered, not all investments. The amendment to Section 14A was also held to be prospective.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee filed the return for AY 2017-18 before the due date for audited cases, the short-term capital loss claimed was eligible for carry forward. Therefore, the denial of set off was incorrect.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. This was in light of a CBDT circular that extended the deadline for filing specific forms.

The Tribunal allowed the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals. This was in light of a CBDT circular that extended the deadline for filing specific forms.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order and did not consider the assessment records, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a proper disposal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee submitted an affidavit stating no sum was received from JVPL. Given this rebuttal and the fact that the addition was based on this premise, the matter was restored to the AO for verification of the affidavit and bank statements.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand from the opening balance of Rs. 22,53,590/- (which included Rs. 16,00,000/- declared as income for AY 2016-17 via a belated return) and Rs. 5,00,000/- declared under IDS. Therefore, the addition made under Section 69A was not justified.

The tribunal held that the denial of set off of brought forward short-term capital losses under Section 143(1) was a debatable issue and could not be adjusted without providing reasons and an opportunity of hearing, violating the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not formed an independent belief that income had escaped assessment, but rather reopened the case for mere verification of share capital. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the addition of gross sale proceeds without considering purchases is incorrect. Net income from securities trading should be assessed, not gross consideration. The CIT(A) failed to consider the evidence of net losses.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the AO. The AO is to re-examine the expenses claimed by the assessee, providing a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the NCLT's order for corporate insolvency process renders the revenue's appeal not maintainable. All litigation involving the assessee ceases, and liabilities to the government are extinguished.

The ITAT found that there was no material on record to confirm that the notices were received by the assessee. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A), especially considering the new faceless appellate proceedings. The Tribunal remitted the issues to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, ensuring a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the pharmacy is an integral part of the hospital's charitable activity and not a separate business. Therefore, Section 11(4)/11(4A) is not applicable, and the income from the pharmacy should be treated as part of the trust's exempt income. Additionally, the accumulation of income under Section 11(1)(a) should be calculated on gross receipts, not net income.