ITAT Kolkata Judgments — September 2024

The Tribunal held that the filing of the audit report is directory in nature and the assessee had substantially complied with the requirement by filing the correct form before the CPC order. Therefore, the denial of exemption was incorrect.

The ITAT, following its own previous decisions and Supreme Court rulings, held that depreciation is allowable on goodwill arising from an amalgamation. The disallowance by the lower authorities was deemed erroneous.

The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation, finding that the AO had indeed considered duplicate transactions. The CIT(A) directed the deletion of the addition, holding that the assessee had duly explained the nature and source of the expenditure with documentary evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT's Circular No. 09/2024, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals.

The Tribunal held that the additions were not justified as the amounts were either explained by outstanding balances and other transactions or duly reflected in the assessee's books. Consequently, the penalty levied was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the transaction was a gift from a Class-I relative (mother) to the assessee. Therefore, the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act were not attracted, and the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without independent application of mind by the AO. It also found that taxing the same amount in two different years would result in impermissible double taxation.

The Tribunal held that since the original assessment order was set aside and restored for de novo assessment, the appeal before the CIT(A) had become infructuous. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was not sustainable and was quashed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. This was based on the CBDT's circular regarding monetary limits for filing appeals, which stipulated that appeals with a low tax effect should not be pursued.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was based on the CBDT's Circular No. 09/2024, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals, and the tax effect in this case fell below those limits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully discharged its primary onus by providing necessary details regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the unsecured loans. Following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for the same assessment year, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition and interest disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT had not adequately examined the explanations and documents provided by the assessee and the Assessing Officer (AO). The Pr. CIT's conclusion that the AO had not made adequate inquiries was found to be factually incorrect, as the AO had indeed verified the issues.

The Tribunal held that the prohibition of deduction for CSR expenditure under Section 37(1) does not extend to other sections of the Income Tax Act, including Section 80G. Therefore, donations made out of CSR expenditure, if otherwise eligible under Section 80G, should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the prohibition of deduction for CSR expenditure under Section 37(1) does not extend to other sections of the Income Tax Act, including Section 80G. Therefore, donations made out of CSR expenditure, if otherwise eligible under Section 80G, should be allowed.

The Tribunal held that the additions were not justified as the amounts were either explained by outstanding balances and other transactions or duly reflected in the assessee's books. Consequently, the penalty levied was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the provision for warranty was an allowable expense, considering the assessee's contractual obligations, past experience, and scientific method of calculation. The issue of unsecured loans was set aside and remitted to the AO for re-examination of evidence.

The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice and the assessee's assurance of cooperation, decided to grant one more opportunity for the assessee to present their case. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remanded for re-examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The grounds of appeal challenge the denial of deduction under Section 80P and the additions made under Section 68 and for contingent liabilities.

The Tribunal condoned the substantial delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the amount received was from the sale of investments held since FY 2007-08, not a fresh loan or share capital. Therefore, Section 68 was not applicable, and the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the transactions between the assessee and the company were not loans or advances but regular business transactions for commercial expediency. They noted continuous inflow and outflow of funds without interest, and referred to CBDT circulars and judicial precedents supporting this view.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished sufficient documentation to establish the identity, creditworthiness of shareholders, and genuineness of the transaction. The documents submitted before the CIT(A) were the same as those submitted before the AO, and no fresh evidence was introduced, making the Revenue's grounds of appeal devoid of merit.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is obligated to decide the appeal on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal observed that TDS credit is granted based on Form 26AS. Since the assessee was not allowed the full TDS credit, the matter was restored to the Jurisdictional AO. The AO was directed to examine the TDS credit details and grant credit if the claim is found correct.

The Tribunal held that the appellant had discharged the onus cast upon them to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 of the Act was not sustainable.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case. The ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for re-examination.

The Tribunal deleted the addition related to TDS as the difference was minor and supported by reconciliation. For business expenses, the disallowance was reduced from 10% to 5% as the original disallowance was considered excessive.

The Tribunal found that the payees had declared the interest income and paid the applicable tax, thus no revenue loss occurred. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1472 days, finding sufficient cause due to the pandemic and internal company issues. The appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable due to a procedural lapse. The penalty notice under Section 274 did not clearly specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, rendering the proceedings void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that while some disallowance was justified due to lack of vouchers, disallowing the entire amount was excessive. It allowed a 10% disallowance of the remaining expenses, considering their nature and the business turnover.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were reduced, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) should also be reduced proportionally. The penalty was ordered to be reduced to reflect the tax on the reduced addition amount.

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal. The Department had no objection. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions, noting that the lower authorities failed to properly examine the submissions regarding no new investment. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that the appeal should be dismissed as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. CBDT circulars are binding on revenue authorities.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had correctly claimed depreciation only on the portion of the building used for business, while the let-out portion was treated as 'Non-Current Investments' with no depreciation claimed. Therefore, the PCIT's revision order was based on a mistaken appreciation of facts.

The Tribunal dismissed grounds related to disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) based on a Supreme Court ruling. However, it restored issues concerning an addition of Rs. 35,41,68,666 and TDS credit to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as the AO lacked valid reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment, relying on vague information without independent verification. Therefore, the consequential additions were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted confirmations and evidence of the loans being taken in earlier years from active companies. A similar issue in a prior assessment year saw the principal amount of loans deleted by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as the Assessing Officer lacked sufficient tangible material to form a 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the addition was unsustainable on merits due to the denial of the assessee's right to cross-examine the third party whose statement formed the basis of the addition, violating principles of natural justice.

The assessee's counsel requested to withdraw the appeal, and the Departmental Representative did not object. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal accepted the fair market value of the property as on the date of sale from a co-sharer's DVO report. It also directed that the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 be taken as per the assessee's registered valuer's report, as it was disputed and not properly addressed by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to adduce additional evidence, stating that the assessment orders of the share applicants would help in deciding the appeal judiciously. The Tribunal acknowledged that Section 68 requires the assessee to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share applicants.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn because the rectification order by the CIT(A) resolved all disputes.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to address the assessee's contention regarding the incorrect stamp duty value. The Tribunal found that the AO had adopted an erroneous stamp duty value, contrary to the assessee's submissions and supporting documents. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was unsustainable.

The Tribunal found that the interests of justice would be served by allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s ex parte order was set aside and the matter was restored for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without properly considering the condonation of delay. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case with written submissions and evidence, and then pass a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being domiciled in Sikkim on or before April 26, 1975, is entitled to the exemption under Section 10(26AAA) as per the Supreme Court's ruling. The revenue's appeals were dismissed as they lacked merit.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had indeed passed an ex-parte order. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the entire issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.