ITAT Kolkata Judgments — August 2024

The Tribunal held that the assessment in the impugned assessment year was abated, and the AO had the power to examine books and records. A return filed under Section 153A is akin to a return filed under Section 139(1), and a fresh claim can be made. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) to this extent but noted that the CIT(A) rejected part of the claim due to incomplete details. For the Section 32AC deduction, the Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) accepted eligibility for Rs. 19.55 crores, the deduction was denied due to the threshold limit. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to examine all evidence regarding additions to plant and machinery and ascertain eligibility for deduction under Section 32AC. The assessee was directed to file all supporting evidence. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding other issues, the Tribunal noted that they were similar to those decided in other appeals and applied its previous decisions mutatis mutandis. Specifically, additions to book profits under Section 115JB were allowed for the assessee, and revenue's grounds regarding Section 80IA were dismissed. Deletion of Rs. 86,500/- by the CIT(A) on account of unexplained expenditure was upheld, dismissing the revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessment in the impugned assessment year was abated, and the AO had the power to examine books and records. A return filed under Section 153A is akin to a return filed under Section 139(1), and a fresh claim can be made. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) to this extent but noted that the CIT(A) rejected part of the claim due to incomplete details. For the Section 32AC deduction, the Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) accepted eligibility for Rs. 19.55 crores, the deduction was denied due to the threshold limit. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to examine all evidence regarding additions to plant and machinery and ascertain eligibility for deduction under Section 32AC. The assessee was directed to file all supporting evidence. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding other issues, the Tribunal noted that they were similar to those decided in other appeals and applied its previous decisions mutatis mutandis. Specifically, additions to book profits under Section 115JB were allowed for the assessee, and revenue's grounds regarding Section 80IA were dismissed. Deletion of Rs. 86,500/- by the CIT(A) on account of unexplained expenditure was upheld, dismissing the revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessment in the impugned assessment year was abated, and the AO had the power to examine books and records. A return filed under Section 153A is akin to a return filed under Section 139(1), and a fresh claim can be made. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) to this extent but noted that the CIT(A) rejected part of the claim due to incomplete details. For the Section 32AC deduction, the Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) accepted eligibility for Rs. 19.55 crores, the deduction was denied due to the threshold limit. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to examine all evidence regarding additions to plant and machinery and ascertain eligibility for deduction under Section 32AC. The assessee was directed to file all supporting evidence. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding other issues, the Tribunal noted that they were similar to those decided in other appeals and applied its previous decisions mutatis mutandis. Specifically, additions to book profits under Section 115JB were allowed for the assessee, and revenue's grounds regarding Section 80IA were dismissed. Deletion of Rs. 86,500/- by the CIT(A) on account of unexplained expenditure was upheld, dismissing the revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form-10B, holding that non-filing is a procedural omission and not an impediment to claiming exemption. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for passing an order in accordance with law.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present all facts and documents before the CIT(A). The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after scrutinizing the submitted papers.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Act is triggered only when credit is found in the 'books of account'. Since there was no finding on whether books of account existed, the matter was remanded to the AO to examine the applicability of Section 68 and to provide a clear finding on tax due without double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the filing of the audit report is directory and substantial compliance is sufficient. Following precedent, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form-10BB, directing the AO to consider it as filed within time.

The Tribunal held that the IBC, 2016 has overriding effect over the Income Tax Act, 1961, especially when a company is in liquidation. Consequently, no further legal proceedings can be instituted against the corporate debtor.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not have the power to set aside issues to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, all issues were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form-10B, considering it a procedural oversight and not a fatal illegality. The assessee was directed to be allowed the exemption as per law.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine without deciding the case on merit. The assessee had submitted various documents to support the source of the cash deposits. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal noted that the original appeal against the same CIT(A) order had already been decided. Therefore, this separately registered appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request and treated the appeal as withdrawn. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation regarding reconciliation with GST returns was insufficient to prove the genuineness of the purchases. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the IBC, 2016 has overriding effect over the Income Tax Act, 1961, especially when a company is in liquidation. Consequently, no further legal proceedings can be instituted against the corporate debtor.

The Tribunal held that the IBC, 2016 has overriding effect over the Income Tax Act, 1961, especially when a company is in liquidation. Consequently, no further legal proceedings can be instituted against the corporate debtor.

The Tribunal held that the IBC, 2016 has overriding effect over the Income Tax Act, 1961, especially when a company is in liquidation. Consequently, no further legal proceedings can be instituted against the corporate debtor.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits represented sales proceeds duly recorded in the books of account and audited. The Tribunal found that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not sustainable as they amounted to double taxation.

The Tribunal held that if the assessee disputes the stamp duty valuation, the Assessing Officer should refer the matter to the Valuation Officer (DVO). The CIT(A) should have facilitated this reference for a just decision.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. Therefore, the merits of the case, including the delay, were not considered.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's status and bona fide reasons. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for a fresh adjudication, noting that the CIT(A) had previously decided an identical issue in favor of the assessee's son.

The Tribunal found that the tax effect of the relief granted by the CIT(Appeals) was below the threshold stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The assessee had filed a fresh application under the extended due date provided by the CBDT circular, rendering the current appeal infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the application for permanent registration was not time-barred. It directed the CIT (Exemption) to grant provisional approval if the assessee is otherwise eligible and to decide the application for final registration within three months.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without touching the merits of the case. For the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its responsibility under Section 68 by providing evidence that the cash deposits were from sales in the ordinary course of business and were duly recorded in the books of account. Merely collecting demonetized notes against sales recorded in books does not automatically make the amount unexplained.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The assessee had filed a fresh application under the extended due date provisions of the CBDT circular, rendering the current appeal infructuous.

The Tribunal noted factual mistakes in the AO's assessment regarding the cash deposit amounts and account ownership. It decided to give the assessee another opportunity to explain the sources of the deposits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the Supreme Court's liberal approach to 'sufficient cause' in cases of delay, emphasizing that technicalities should not defeat substantial justice. The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are linked to search and requisition under Sections 132 and 132A. The object of Section 153A is to tax undisclosed income found during search. Additions can only be made if there is incriminating material unearthed during the search that was not disclosed in the regular return. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not referred to any seized material for the additions made in the assessment orders for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13. The issues raised could have been part of a regular scrutiny assessment. The additions made were beyond the scope of Section 153A. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed all appeals, deleting the additions/disallowances of losses made by the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the Supreme Court's liberal approach to 'sufficient cause' in cases of delay, emphasizing that technicalities should not defeat substantial justice. The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are linked to search and requisition under Sections 132 and 132A. The object of Section 153A is to tax undisclosed income found during search. Additions can only be made if there is incriminating material unearthed during the search that was not disclosed in the regular return. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not referred to any seized material for the additions made in the assessment orders for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13. The issues raised could have been part of a regular scrutiny assessment. The additions made were beyond the scope of Section 153A. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed all appeals, deleting the additions/disallowances of losses made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was erroneous as the AO had already considered the issue raised by the auditors regarding ICDS-V. The assessee had provided a detailed working and explanation, which the AO had examined and accepted, leading to no adverse treatment. Therefore, the PCIT's order was not sustainable.

The tribunal held that the interest income from deposits with banks cannot be considered for deduction under Section 80P. However, the assessee is entitled to claim reasonable expenses incurred for earning this income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to prove the land was agricultural. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to examine the evidence and pass a speaking order, with a direction to consider any capital gains already offered by the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the Supreme Court's liberal approach to 'sufficient cause' in cases of delay, emphasizing that technicalities should not defeat substantial justice. The Tribunal held that assessments under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are linked to search and requisition under Sections 132 and 132A. The object of Section 153A is to tax undisclosed income found during search. Additions can only be made if there is incriminating material unearthed during the search that was not disclosed in the regular return. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not referred to any seized material for the additions made in the assessment orders for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13. The issues raised could have been part of a regular scrutiny assessment. The additions made were beyond the scope of Section 153A. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed all appeals, deleting the additions/disallowances of losses made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in applying the percentage completion method. The transitional provisions of ICDS III allowed the continued use of the regularly followed project completion method for projects commenced before April 1, 2016.

The ITAT condoned the 8-day delay in filing the appeal. The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte dismissal was not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Act and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). It found that the subscriber companies exhibited characteristics of shell companies, lacking operations, assets, and financial capacity to justify the substantial premium paid for shares.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a valid notice under section 143(2) by an officer with proper jurisdiction is a mandatory prerequisite for assessment proceedings. Since the notice was issued by an officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction, the subsequent assessment proceedings were invalid and liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had substantiated the nature and sources of the cash deposit with documentary evidence, including balance sheets showing cash in hand and bank statements. The authorities below had not controverted the withdrawals or proved otherwise that the cash was utilized elsewhere.

The Tribunal held that the case was not one of misreporting of income but a difference of opinion. Since the assessee had agreements for sale of the flats, their bonafide belief that deemed rent provisions were not applicable was accepted.

The Tribunal held that the claim for deduction under Section 80P was already decided against the assessee in a previous order and thus rejected it. However, it allowed the assessee to claim expenses corresponding to income assessed under 'income from other sources'.

The Tribunal held that while Section 40A(2)(b) allows scrutiny of interest on loans to/from relatives, wholesale disallowance is not warranted. It directed that notional interest on loans given to relatives should be restricted to 9%, aligning with the interest paid on loans received from relatives.

The Tribunal held that the usance charges paid to foreign banks for import finance constitute interest income of a non-resident, attracting the provisions of Section 195. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the usance charges paid to foreign banks for import finance constitute interest income of a non-resident, attracting the provisions of Section 195. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that in cases of completed/unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search action. This decision was based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The Court held that Section 153A is intended to assess or reassess total income for the block period only when incriminating material is found. If no such material is found in completed assessments, the Revenue's remedy lies in reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148, subject to their conditions. Since no incriminating material was found during the search, and the assessments were completed/unabated, the Assessing Officer lacked the authority to make additions on other issues. Consequently, the impugned additions were deemed unsustainable and ordered to be deleted. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the cross-appeals by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that in cases of completed/unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search action. This decision was based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The Court held that Section 153A is intended to assess or reassess total income for the block period only when incriminating material is found. If no such material is found in completed assessments, the Revenue's remedy lies in reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148, subject to their conditions. Since no incriminating material was found during the search, and the assessments were completed/unabated, the Assessing Officer lacked the authority to make additions on other issues. Consequently, the impugned additions were deemed unsustainable and ordered to be deleted. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the cross-appeals by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that in cases of completed/unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search action. This decision was based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The Court held that Section 153A is intended to assess or reassess total income for the block period only when incriminating material is found. If no such material is found in completed assessments, the Revenue's remedy lies in reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148, subject to their conditions. Since no incriminating material was found during the search, and the assessments were completed/unabated, the Assessing Officer lacked the authority to make additions on other issues. Consequently, the impugned additions were deemed unsustainable and ordered to be deleted. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the cross-appeals by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that in cases of completed/unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search action. This decision was based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The Court held that Section 153A is intended to assess or reassess total income for the block period only when incriminating material is found. If no such material is found in completed assessments, the Revenue's remedy lies in reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148, subject to their conditions. Since no incriminating material was found during the search, and the assessments were completed/unabated, the Assessing Officer lacked the authority to make additions on other issues. Consequently, the impugned additions were deemed unsustainable and ordered to be deleted. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the cross-appeals by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that in cases of completed/unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search action. This decision was based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The Court held that Section 153A is intended to assess or reassess total income for the block period only when incriminating material is found. If no such material is found in completed assessments, the Revenue's remedy lies in reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148, subject to their conditions. Since no incriminating material was found during the search, and the assessments were completed/unabated, the Assessing Officer lacked the authority to make additions on other issues. Consequently, the impugned additions were deemed unsustainable and ordered to be deleted. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the cross-appeals by the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that in cases of completed/unabated assessments, additions under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material found during the search action. This decision was based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. The Court held that Section 153A is intended to assess or reassess total income for the block period only when incriminating material is found. If no such material is found in completed assessments, the Revenue's remedy lies in reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148, subject to their conditions. Since no incriminating material was found during the search, and the assessments were completed/unabated, the Assessing Officer lacked the authority to make additions on other issues. Consequently, the impugned additions were deemed unsustainable and ordered to be deleted. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the cross-appeals by the revenue were dismissed.