ITAT Kolkata Judgments — May 2024

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as the AO had already examined the loan during the original assessment, constituting a change of opinion. It also found that the disallowance under Section 14A was not sustainable as expenses disallowed exceeded exempt income and sufficient own funds were available for investments.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as the AO had already examined the loan during the original assessment, constituting a change of opinion. It also found that the disallowance under Section 14A was not sustainable as expenses disallowed exceeded exempt income and sufficient own funds were available for investments.

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.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee will be given an opportunity to be heard and present necessary evidence.

The Tribunal held that since the initial notice under Section 148 was not issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer, and no fresh notice was issued after the file was transferred to the correct jurisdictional officer, the reassessment proceedings were bad in law and void ab initio. Consequently, the additions made were deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the issue to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to file an affidavit supporting their contention of no transaction in the specified scrip.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication. The legal grounds regarding invalid notice were dismissed, but the merits of the case were restored to the AO for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to follow the mandate of Section 250(6) by not providing points of determination and reasons. The Tribunal also noted the AO's potentially incorrect finding regarding the penny stock.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as the AO had already examined the loan during the original assessment, constituting a change of opinion. It also found that the disallowance under Section 14A was not sustainable as expenses disallowed exceeded exempt income and sufficient own funds were available for investments.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as the AO had already examined the loan during the original assessment, constituting a change of opinion. It also found that the disallowance under Section 14A was not sustainable as expenses disallowed exceeded exempt income and sufficient own funds were available for investments.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in amplifying the turnover to Rs. 3 Crores without sufficient basis. It decided that the gross deposits in the bank account should be treated as gross turnover, and the profit should be estimated on the remaining amount after deducting the declared turnover.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in quashing the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found that incriminating material, including hard disks, digital information, and corroborating statements from key persons, was indeed seized during the search. This material had a direct bearing on the financial transactions and business activities of the assessee for the assessment years in dispute. The Assessing Officer had examined this material, referred to it in the assessment orders, and used it, along with other seized documents and statements, to conclude the assessment proceedings and make the impugned additions. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the decisions relied upon by the CIT(A) and the assessee, particularly the case of Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., by emphasizing the presence of incriminating material. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not challenged the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer and had not filed any cross-objections. Therefore, the Tribunal reversed the findings of the CIT(A) and confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2014-15. The Tribunal also held that the assessee's plea regarding the lack of opportunity for cross-examination was an afterthought, as the statements and material were available at the time of search, and no request for cross-examination was made.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in quashing the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found that incriminating material, including hard disks, digital information, and corroborating statements from key persons, was indeed seized during the search. This material had a direct bearing on the financial transactions and business activities of the assessee for the assessment years in dispute. The Assessing Officer had examined this material, referred to it in the assessment orders, and used it, along with other seized documents and statements, to conclude the assessment proceedings and make the impugned additions. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the decisions relied upon by the CIT(A) and the assessee, particularly the case of Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., by emphasizing the presence of incriminating material. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not challenged the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer and had not filed any cross-objections. Therefore, the Tribunal reversed the findings of the CIT(A) and confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2014-15. The Tribunal also held that the assessee's plea regarding the lack of opportunity for cross-examination was an afterthought, as the statements and material were available at the time of search, and no request for cross-examination was made.

The Tribunal held that no share capital or premium was received during the impugned financial year, as evidenced by the audited balance sheets. Relying on a Calcutta High Court decision, it was found that Section 68 is not applicable to sums received in preceding financial years.

The Tribunal held that both lower authorities failed to follow the statutory provisions of Section 50C(2) by not referring the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer to ascertain the fair market value. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable in law.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was bad in law because the mandatory notice under section 143(2) was not issued to the assessee. Relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Silver Line, the Tribunal set aside the reassessment.

The Tribunal held that the notional gain should not have been added back as it was correctly adjusted in the computation of income. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be added to book profit under Section 115JB, citing relevant precedents.

The Tribunal held that the blanket disallowance of entire expenses by the AO CPC under Section 143(1) was unreasonable and unjustified. Such adjustments, relating to debatable issues, cannot be made as prima facie adjustments.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in quashing the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found that incriminating material, including hard disks, digital information, and corroborating statements from key persons, was indeed seized during the search. This material had a direct bearing on the financial transactions and business activities of the assessee for the assessment years in dispute. The Assessing Officer had examined this material, referred to it in the assessment orders, and used it, along with other seized documents and statements, to conclude the assessment proceedings and make the impugned additions. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the decisions relied upon by the CIT(A) and the assessee, particularly the case of Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., by emphasizing the presence of incriminating material. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not challenged the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer and had not filed any cross-objections. Therefore, the Tribunal reversed the findings of the CIT(A) and confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2014-15. The Tribunal also held that the assessee's plea regarding the lack of opportunity for cross-examination was an afterthought, as the statements and material were available at the time of search, and no request for cross-examination was made.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in quashing the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found that incriminating material, including hard disks, digital information, and corroborating statements from key persons, was indeed seized during the search. This material had a direct bearing on the financial transactions and business activities of the assessee for the assessment years in dispute. The Assessing Officer had examined this material, referred to it in the assessment orders, and used it, along with other seized documents and statements, to conclude the assessment proceedings and make the impugned additions. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the decisions relied upon by the CIT(A) and the assessee, particularly the case of Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., by emphasizing the presence of incriminating material. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had not challenged the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer and had not filed any cross-objections. Therefore, the Tribunal reversed the findings of the CIT(A) and confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2014-15. The Tribunal also held that the assessee's plea regarding the lack of opportunity for cross-examination was an afterthought, as the statements and material were available at the time of search, and no request for cross-examination was made.

The Tribunal held that the notional gain should not have been added back as it was correctly adjusted in the computation of income. It also held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be added to book profit under Section 115JB, citing relevant precedents.

The Tribunal noted that the issues were not decided on merit in the lower proceedings. To ensure justice, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was bad in law because the mandatory notice under section 143(2) was not issued to the assessee. Relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Silver Line, the Tribunal set aside the reassessment.

The Tribunal held that the blanket disallowance of entire expenses by the AO CPC under Section 143(1) was unreasonable and unjustified. Such adjustments, relating to debatable issues, cannot be made as prima facie adjustments.

The tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim 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 noted that the issues were not decided on merit in the lower proceedings. To ensure justice, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause due to the pandemic and the assessee's circumstances. The Tribunal also referred to Supreme Court judgments emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities.

The tribunal held that the profit from share sales, already offered as income, should not be taxed again, thus deleting the addition. The bad debt write-off was also allowed as a legitimate business loss incidental to business operations.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be penalized for the employer's failure to deposit the deducted TDS. The credit for TDS deducted at source should be allowed to the assessee.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was justified in deleting the addition made under Section 68 as the transaction was a barter/cashless transaction and not a cash credit. The Tribunal also found no error in the CIT(Appeals) deleting the addition under Section 14A.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made under the wrong provisions of the Act (Section 69C) as the purchases were recorded in the books and payments were made through banking channels. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not reject the books of account and made additions without proper investigation.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made under the wrong provisions of the Act (Section 69C) as the purchases were recorded in the books and payments were made through banking channels. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not reject the books of account and made additions without proper investigation.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment based on the same facts available during the original assessment constituted a change of opinion, which is impermissible. The approval process was also found to be flawed due to the short timeframe and holidays.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment based on the same facts available during the original assessment constituted a change of opinion, which is impermissible. The approval process was also found to be flawed due to the short timeframe and holidays.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to examine the assessee's contentions that shares were received on credit, not cash, and that Section 68 was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law. The AO's belief was based on incorrect information (assessee had filed its return) and borrowed satisfaction, without proper verification. Furthermore, the assessment was void ab initio due to the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee had indicated its original return should be treated as filed in response to the Section 148 notice.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's ground, acknowledging the ex-parte nature of the assessment order. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh application in light of a CBDT circular extending the due date.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 8.50 Lakh made by the AO under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was unjustified. A careful perusal of the orders of the lower authorities revealed that the explanation provided by the assessee was disregarded. The Tribunal found that the AO made assumptions regarding the genuineness of the transaction and the figure of Rs. 8.50 Lakh without making any effort to prove that the alleged transaction actually happened. The explanation offered by the assessee, supported by documents pertaining to another transaction with Smt. Hira Devi Jain, was casually dismissed. The Tribunal concluded that the addition was based on an arbitrary figure. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 8.50 Lakh was deleted. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh application for registration as per the CBDT circular.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain companies from the list of comparables for transfer pricing calculations and allowed the appeals for statistical purposes. It also dismissed the ground regarding the rejection of High Quality Steels Ltd. as a comparable.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of certain companies from the list of comparables for transfer pricing calculations and allowed the appeals for statistical purposes. It also dismissed the ground regarding the rejection of High Quality Steels Ltd. as a comparable.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in invoking Section 263 as he did not conduct his own independent inquiry to establish the assessment order was erroneous. The Tribunal relied on High Court precedents stating the CIT must examine the AO's order on merits before revising it.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had already conducted an inquiry, and the Pr. CIT did not independently verify the transactions to establish the order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The Tribunal relied on a High Court decision with similar facts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had made a technical error by applying under clause (iv) instead of clause (i) of the proviso to Section 80G(5), as it was an existing trust. The application was considered to be within time as per CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order, restoring the matter for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to furnish all required information when called for by the CIT(Exemption).

The Tribunal held that the assessees are entitled to the benefit of CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2024, which aims to mitigate genuine hardship. Their applications should not be rejected based on a strict interpretation of the circular's wording.