ITAT Kolkata Judgments — June 2024

The Tribunal held that the amounts received were not fresh share application money but a conversion of old outstanding loans into share allotment. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were for general public utility and the profit derived was meager. Relying on its own previous decisions and Supreme Court rulings, the Tribunal found the assessee entitled to exemption under Section 11.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transaction. The AO and CIT(A) erred in discarding the documentary evidence without proper verification.

The tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as they had applied for fresh registration under a new CBDT circular. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, deleting the disallowance for most cash purchases and the addition for bogus creditors, finding that the raw jute qualified for exceptions under Rule 6DD. However, it confirmed the disallowance for specific cash payments and the addition for late PF contributions.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search for completed assessment years, no addition could be made. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that since no incriminating material was found during the search for completed assessment years, no addition could be made. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 93,300/- was not sustainable as the difference was within the 10% leverage allowed under Section 43C. Regarding the Rs. 1,27,85,800/-, the Tribunal ruled that since the income was already offered in the next financial year, the addition would lead to double taxation and was therefore not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on interest paid to its members, who are cooperative societies, based on paragraph 42.7 of Circular No. 19 of 2015. Consequently, the demands and disallowances were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on interest paid to its members, who are cooperative societies, based on paragraph 42.7 of Circular No. 19 of 2015. Consequently, the demands and disallowances were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on interest paid to its members, who are cooperative societies, based on paragraph 42.7 of Circular No. 19 of 2015. Consequently, the demands and disallowances were deleted.

The Tribunal noted that additional documents were filed before it that were not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee to file the documents and the AO to examine them.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, as the basis for reopening was factually incorrect. The reassessment proceedings were initiated after four years from the end of the assessment year without fulfilling the conditions of the first proviso to Section 147.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the statutory time limit, making the assumption of jurisdiction faulty. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings and the assessment order were deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was unabated on the date of search as the time limit for issuing notice under Section 143(2) had expired on September 30, 2019. It was also undisputed that no incriminating material was found during the search proceedings. The AO had accepted the returned income. The Tribunal noted that the PCIT, upon perusing the balance sheet, identified a loan of Rs. 24,00,000 from M/s Calcast Ferrous Ltd. as a potential deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). However, the Tribunal found the invocation of jurisdiction under Section 263 by the PCIT to be invalid. The reasoning was that there was no mistake in the assessment order framed by the AO under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A, which was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, as the assessment was framed validly. It is a settled principle that in the case of an unabated assessment on the date of search, additions can only be made based on incriminating material seized during the search. Since no such material was found, the AO correctly made no addition. Therefore, the assessment framed by the AO was in accordance with the law and could not be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal relied on the decision of its Co-ordinate Bench in M/s Sona Vets Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, which held that if an addition cannot be made as per law in Section 153A proceedings, the order cannot be construed as erroneous warranting revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263. Accordingly, the revisionary order passed by the PCIT was quashed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to telescoping benefit as the cash in hand was neither declared nor taxed in the earlier year, and the assessment order was quashed. The assessee failed to explain the source of post office deposits.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with notices and furnish details, and the Assessing Officer was to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the employer's contribution was deposited before the due date of filing the return and allow it if so. However, the disallowance for delayed deposit of employees' contribution was upheld in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication, citing violation of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal also noted a potential double addition issue for AY 2011-12 and directed the AO to examine it.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the statutory time limit, making the assumption of jurisdiction faulty. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings and the assessment order were deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had fully disclosed the particulars of the capital gain in the return of income. Since nothing was concealed, no penalty was leviable. The AO failed to demonstrate that the claim was false or that penalty proceedings were initiated with clear satisfaction.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) after considering the assessee's explanation and corroborating documents. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) after considering the assessee's explanation and corroborating documents. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and directed the CIT(Exemption) to re-consider the assessee's application for registration in light of the new CBDT circular.

The tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, holding that strict compliance with Section 36(1)(va) is mandatory for claiming deductions. Provisions of Section 43B cannot be applied to employees' contributions to PF & ESI.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided all necessary evidence, including ITRs, audited accounts, and confirmations from shareholders who appeared in person. The Tribunal noted that similar transactions were accepted in a subsequent assessment year and that the share valuation was justified.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing it to decide the appeal afresh on merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity to present its case. The assessee was also directed to provide its correct address and contact details.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including financial statements and bank details of investors, to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal found that the AO had wrongly stated non-compliance with summons and that the authorities below had not properly verified the evidence.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication, citing violation of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal also noted a potential double addition issue for AY 2011-12 and directed the AO to examine it.

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order, citing principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing the assessee a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal noted a recent CBDT circular allowing trusts to file applications for registration under Section 80G until June 30, 2024. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(E) to decide the issue based on the existing application and the new circular.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s rejection was unsustainable as the assessee, being an existing trust, could not have applied within the prescribed timeframes for provisional registration. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal noted that crucial documents supporting the assessee's claim as a developer were not filed before the lower authorities. Consequently, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee to produce the evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully proved the identity, creditworthiness of share applicants, and genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 and the consequential penalty were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully proved the identity, creditworthiness of share applicants, and genuineness of the transactions. Consequently, the addition under Section 68 was deleted, and the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had explained the actual cash deposits and the AO failed to provide any evidence to support the larger addition. The revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that having provisional registration does not prevent an assessee from applying for final registration. The application for final registration can be made before the expiry of the provisional registration period.

The Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the employer's contribution to PF/ESI was deposited within the due date for IT return filing and allow it if so. The issue of gratuity provision was restored to the AO for verification of suo moto disallowance. The advance tax credit for the demerged unit was allowed.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and make a fresh assessment after ensuring communication at the correct address.

The Tribunal held that unpaid professional tax deducted from employee salaries, which is a statutory liability of the employer to deposit, falls under Section 43B(a) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the deduction for such unpaid tax is allowable only in the year it is actually paid.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits and set aside the order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence and be heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits and set aside the order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence and be heard.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A)'s order was based on incorrect facts. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to examine the identity, financial worthiness of share applicants, justification of premium, and genuineness of the transaction.

The Tribunal, noting the absence of the assessee and the presence of the revenue representative, proceeded to adjudicate the appeal. The grounds of appeal primarily challenge the procedural fairness and the merits of the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not appear before the AO and did not file a return, thus dismissing the plea regarding the validity of the Section 148 notice. However, considering the assessee's claim of not receiving proper notice and an opportunity to present documents, the matter was set aside.

The Tribunal restored the issues on merits to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was to ensure that the remand report and other relevant details were considered, providing a fair opportunity to both parties.

The Tribunal restored the issues on merits to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was to ensure that the remand report and other relevant details were considered, providing a fair opportunity to both parties.

The Tribunal set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer to consider the order condoning the delay and allow deductions under Section 11. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the explanation for delay to be reasonable and not a dilatory tactic. The Tribunal also held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudicating on merits, as the advance tax liability was not properly established.