ITAT Kolkata Judgments — July 2024

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application as premature. Following a previous identical case, the Tribunal set aside the order and directed the CIT(Exemption) to reconsider the application for final registration.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after considering the assessee's submissions and documents, granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal accepted the additional evidence of the director's disclosure and tax payment. It directed the Assessing Officer to verify the disclosure and grant relief as per law.

The Tribunal held that the payments made by the retail vendor (assessee) to the wholesale licensee, who acted as an agent of the State Government, fell under the exception provided in Rule 6DD(k) of the Income Tax Rules. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 40A(3) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that availing the remedy under Section 264 does not bar filing an appeal before the CIT(A) under Section 246A. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on this ground.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with no objection from the Revenue.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after considering the assessee's submissions and documents, granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) misinterpreted the time limits for final approval applications. The commencement of activities prior to provisional approval does not bar the grant of final approval if applied within the stipulated period after provisional approval.

The Tribunal held that the application for final approval cannot be rejected on the ground that activities commenced before provisional approval. The commencement of activity for the purpose of the timeline should be counted after the grant of provisional registration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one appeal and, noting a subsequent CBDT circular extending the due date for Form 10AB to 30.06.2024, restored all matters to the CIT(Exemption). The CIT(Exemption) was directed to admit the applications and decide them on merits.

The Tribunal held that Section 115-O of the Income Tax Act mandates the payment of DDT at the prescribed rate, irrespective of the shareholder's residency or the DTAA provisions. The DDT is a tax on the company distributing the dividend, not on the shareholder's income.

The Tribunal held that Section 79 of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to unabsorbed depreciation, as per the Supreme Court's ruling. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the shareholding criteria for setting off business losses were met. Consequently, the order passed under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal held that Section 115-O of the Income Tax Act mandates the payment of DDT at the prescribed rate, irrespective of the shareholder's residency or the DTAA provisions. The DDT is a tax on the company distributing the dividend, not on the shareholder's income.

The Tribunal held that Section 115-O of the Income Tax Act mandates the payment of DDT at the prescribed rate, irrespective of the shareholder's residency or the DTAA provisions. The DDT is a tax on the company distributing the dividend, not on the shareholder's income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the old registration under Section 12A was valid until the fresh registration was granted. Therefore, the issue was not examined properly by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as it was based on vague information and without proper verification. Furthermore, even on merits, the additions were not warranted as the assessee had provided sufficient documents to prove the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issues on merit after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as there was no tangible information or live nexus established between the information available with the AO and the assessee's transactions. The additions made on merits were also not sustainable due to lack of independent investigation.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was bad in law because the Assessing Officer did not dispose of the assessee's objections and the reasons for reopening were based on suspicion rather than a belief founded on material. Consequently, the reassessment notice and order were quashed.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, noting that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity of hearing by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that Section 115-O of the Income Tax Act mandates the payment of DDT at the prescribed rate, irrespective of the shareholder's residency or the DTAA provisions. The DDT is a tax on the company distributing the dividend, not on the shareholder's income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one appeal and, noting a subsequent CBDT circular extending the due date for Form 10AB to 30.06.2024, restored all matters to the CIT(Exemption). The CIT(Exemption) was directed to admit the applications and decide them on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one appeal and, noting a subsequent CBDT circular extending the due date for Form 10AB to 30.06.2024, restored all matters to the CIT(Exemption). The CIT(Exemption) was directed to admit the applications and decide them on merits.

The Tribunal found that both the assessment order and the appellate order were ex-parte and did not consider the merits of the case. In the interest of justice, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that the CIT (Exemption) did not adjudicate the application on its merits. The application was rejected solely on the grounds of being premature, without a proper examination of the submitted documents.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was time-barred as it was issued after the prescribed due date. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings and the order passed were deemed null and void.

The Tribunal found that both the assessment order and the appellate order were ex-parte and did not consider the merits of the case. In the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to submit documents and explanations before the lower authorities. For the ends of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee an opportunity to present their case and supporting materials before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that Section 240 of the Act is applicable when a refund becomes due as a result of an appellate order, not Section 239(2)(c). Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the refund.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) should have decided the applications on merit, without being influenced by any provisional registration status. The Tribunal directed the CIT to decide the applications afresh, considering the extended timelines provided by CBDT circulars for such applications.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) was competent to rectify the error. It set aside the impugned orders, remanding the issue to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain its status and eligibility for Sections 11 & 12 benefits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application on technical grounds without considering CBDT circulars and the position of law. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision and set aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT's order, finding that the show-cause notices were sent to an incorrect email address. The CIT was directed to decide the application afresh on merit.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) should have decided the applications on merit, without being influenced by any provisional registrations. The Tribunal directed the CIT to decide the applications afresh, considering the extended time limits provided by CBDT circulars.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals, granting liberty to file a fresh application for registration. The CIT (Exemption) was directed to consider the fresh application, condoning any delay, without prejudice to the impugned order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. It set aside the impugned orders and restored the assessee's applications for registration and approval, directing the CIT(Exemption) to decide them on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s view regarding the erroneous utilization of corpus funds, stating it was not in line with donor directions or the trust deed's intent to preserve corpus. However, it allowed the assessee's claim regarding the application of capital gains for charitable purposes, subject to verification.

The Tribunal allowed the grounds related to disallowance of interest expenditure, finding that the assessee had demonstrated payment of interest and that errors in ledger posting should not lead to disallowance. The addition of interest income was also deleted as the assessee had accounted for it.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals, granting liberty to file a fresh application for registration. The CIT (Exemption) was directed to consider the fresh application, condoning any delay, without prejudice to the impugned order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. It set aside the impugned orders and restored the assessee's applications for registration and approval, directing the CIT(Exemption) to decide them on merits.

The Tribunal held that the deposits were not unexplained income under Section 69A. The assessee explained that the amount was collected by agents from members before demonetization and deposited subsequently, not from fresh cash sales during the period.

The Tribunal held that the appeal for AY 2018-19 is not maintainable as the brought forward losses were not determined in AY 2017-18 due to the late filing of the return for that year. The assessee should have appealed for AY 2017-18 or sought rectification.

The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) passed orders ex-parte. Considering the assessee deserved an opportunity to prove the genuineness of cash entries, the case was set aside to the AO for a fresh opportunity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the need for substantial justice. It also directed the CIT(Exemption) to admit the assessee's application for 80G approval, as it was filed before the extended due date specified by a later CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that the addition was likely made based on an error by the bank, where the deposits belonged to a partnership firm in which the assessee is a partner. The Assessing Officer was directed to verify the bank account and the genuineness of the bank's letter.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on borrowed satisfaction. Furthermore, the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on borrowed satisfaction. Furthermore, the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on borrowed satisfaction. Furthermore, the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions.

The Tribunal held that the AO should have referred the valuation to the DVO if he was not satisfied with the registered valuer's report, rather than outrightly rejecting it. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, directing the AO to adopt the FMV as per the registered valuer's report.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on the merits and without providing a sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's husband, a co-owner, had his income assessed on the same issue with similar contentions accepted.