ITAT Kolkata Judgments — September 2024

The Tribunal, after considering the affidavit filed by the assessee and the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s orders, felt that in the interest of substantive justice, the matters should be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A). The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to afford the assessee an opportunity of being heard and to consider the case afresh. Specifically, the CIT(A) was instructed to consider the assessee's argument that the orders were not valid in law due to the alleged absence of incriminating material found during the search and seizure operation concerning the impugned issues. The Tribunal allowed the four appeals for statistical purposes, remanding the matters for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal, after considering the affidavit filed by the assessee and the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s orders, felt that in the interest of substantive justice, the matters should be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A). The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to afford the assessee an opportunity of being heard and to consider the case afresh. Specifically, the CIT(A) was instructed to consider the assessee's argument that the orders were not valid in law due to the alleged absence of incriminating material found during the search and seizure operation concerning the impugned issues. The Tribunal allowed the four appeals for statistical purposes, remanding the matters for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had duly accounted for WIP considering the merger and that the Assessing Officer had examined the issue during assessment. Therefore, the revisionary order under Section 263 was not legally sustainable.

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.

The Tribunal confirmed the addition of share application money under Section 68, citing the assessee's poor financial condition and lack of satisfactory explanation for high premiums. However, the addition under Section 14A was directed to be deleted as no exempt income was earned.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of consultation fees, promotional gifts, and overseas conference expenses was erroneous, citing a previous order in favor of the assessee for a prior assessment year. It also allowed the deduction for subscription amounts.

The Tribunal, after considering the affidavit filed by the assessee and the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s orders, felt that in the interest of substantive justice, the matters should be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A). The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to afford the assessee an opportunity of being heard and to consider the case afresh. Specifically, the CIT(A) was instructed to consider the assessee's argument that the orders were not valid in law due to the alleged absence of incriminating material found during the search and seizure operation concerning the impugned issues. The Tribunal allowed the four appeals for statistical purposes, remanding the matters for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to the low tax effect, which is below the prescribed limits as per the relevant CBDT Circular. The circular's provisions regarding monetary limits for filing appeals were applied.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present its submissions and documents.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including sale deeds and a gift deed, and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to examine these documents and decide the case afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is not applicable when no exempt income is earned. Regarding interest expenses, it was held that since the property was let out, the entire interest paid was allowable, and comparison with past years was irrelevant. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on interest was also noted as a potential double disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was void-ab-initio as it was based on facts from a different case and did not consider the assessee's grounds of appeal. The Tribunal also found that the cash deposit was not from unexplained sources and deleted the addition.

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 held that the assessee cannot be penalized for the employer's failure to deposit the deducted TDS. The credit for TDS should be allowed once it is deducted, irrespective of its subsequent deposit by the deductor.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of VAT/service tax under Section 43B was applicable and restored the matter to the AO for verification of payments. Regarding the unexplained cash credit, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion, finding that the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders were established, and low income of creditors was not a sole basis for addition.

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 held that the assessee had suo moto disallowed personal expenses of Rs. 6,82,720/-, which was part of a larger disallowance of Rs. 12,52,172/- made in the computation of income. Therefore, the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without discussing the merits of the case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

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, after considering the affidavit filed by the assessee and the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s orders, felt that in the interest of substantive justice, the matters should be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A). The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to afford the assessee an opportunity of being heard and to consider the case afresh. Specifically, the CIT(A) was instructed to consider the assessee's argument that the orders were not valid in law due to the alleged absence of incriminating material found during the search and seizure operation concerning the impugned issues. The Tribunal allowed the four appeals for statistical purposes, remanding the matters for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed without looking into the merits of the case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the notice for hearing was deemed served as it was sent to the assessee's registered address and was not returned. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, as the law requires the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was illegal as it was beyond the four-year period from the original assessment under Section 143(3), and there was no failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. Therefore, the additions made were quashed.

The Tribunal found that the addition made by the AO/CIT(A) would result in a double addition of income already considered in the computation. Therefore, the addition could not be sustained on the given facts.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after issuing proper notice and providing sufficient opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the SEBI's order stating that India Infotech & Software Ltd. is not a shell company and was not involved in price manipulation, along with other documentary evidence, supported the genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the SEBI's order stating that India Infotech & Software Ltd. is not a shell company and was not involved in price manipulation, along with other documentary evidence, supported the genuineness of the transactions. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were erroneous.

The Tribunal allowed the Department's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as it was withdrawn by the appellant.

The Tribunal acknowledged the typographical error in the appeal number and PAN. The order was corrected to reflect the correct PAN of the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 8,00,000 as unexplained capital introduced. The assessee failed to provide evidence of the donors' creditworthiness and the genuineness of the cash gifts.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for AY 2014-15. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply 0.5% as corporate guarantee fee instead of 2% and dismissed other grounds as not pressed. The grounds related to Section 50C were dismissed, and the 15% variation for Section 50C was rejected for the impugned assessment years.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for AY 2014-15. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal directed the AO to apply 0.5% as corporate guarantee fee instead of 2% and dismissed other grounds as not pressed. The grounds related to Section 50C were dismissed, and the 15% variation for Section 50C was rejected for the impugned assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was rendered academic and infructuous as the assessee had filed a fresh application under a new circular. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to consider the fresh application as filed in time and expedite its decision.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal found that the AO estimated profits at 8% of turnover without rejecting the books of account or finding specific defects. The assessee argued that no incriminating material was found during the search, and the estimation was based on conjectures. The Tribunal noted that the AO's observation was verbatim for multiple assessment years, and the CIT(A) had granted relief in previous years. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in *PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.*, holding that in non-abated assessments under Section 153A, additions cannot be made without incriminating material. Therefore, the addition on account of estimated profits was deleted. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal noted that the assessee demonstrated that some figures did not pertain to the assessment year under consideration and the remaining were transportation charges duly recorded in the books of account. The Tribunal found no justification for the addition and ordered its deletion. The general ground was not adjudicated. All appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal found that the AO estimated profits at 8% of turnover without rejecting the books of account or finding specific defects. The assessee argued that no incriminating material was found during the search, and the estimation was based on conjectures. The Tribunal noted that the AO's observation was verbatim for multiple assessment years, and the CIT(A) had granted relief in previous years. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in *PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.*, holding that in non-abated assessments under Section 153A, additions cannot be made without incriminating material. Therefore, the addition on account of estimated profits was deleted. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal noted that the assessee demonstrated that some figures did not pertain to the assessment year under consideration and the remaining were transportation charges duly recorded in the books of account. The Tribunal found no justification for the addition and ordered its deletion. The general ground was not adjudicated. All appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal found that the AO estimated profits at 8% of turnover without rejecting the books of account or finding specific defects. The assessee argued that no incriminating material was found during the search, and the estimation was based on conjectures. The Tribunal noted that the AO's observation was verbatim for multiple assessment years, and the CIT(A) had granted relief in previous years. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court decision in *PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.*, holding that in non-abated assessments under Section 153A, additions cannot be made without incriminating material. Therefore, the addition on account of estimated profits was deleted. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal noted that the assessee demonstrated that some figures did not pertain to the assessment year under consideration and the remaining were transportation charges duly recorded in the books of account. The Tribunal found no justification for the addition and ordered its deletion. The general ground was not adjudicated. All appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent investigations and rejected the assessee's claim based on surmises and conjectures. Relying on previous decisions where similar issues involving the same companies were decided in favor of the assessee, the Tribunal allowed the set-off of the trading losses.

The Tribunal noted the lack of a fair opportunity for the assessee before the AO and the evolving legal position regarding LFC TDS. Considering these factors, the Tribunal restored the issues to the AO for fresh verification and decision.

The Tribunal noted the lack of a fair opportunity for the assessee before the AO and the evolving legal position regarding LFC TDS. Considering these factors, the Tribunal restored the issues to the AO for fresh verification and decision.

The Tribunal noted the lack of a fair opportunity for the assessee before the AO and the evolving legal position regarding LFC TDS. Considering these factors, the Tribunal restored the issues to the AO for fresh verification and decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not producing the books of accounts during the assessment proceedings due to the severe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271A was deleted, and the assessee was granted immunity under Section 273B.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not producing the books of accounts during the assessment proceedings due to the severe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271A was deleted, and the assessee was granted immunity under Section 273B.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not producing the books of accounts during the assessment proceedings due to the severe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271A was deleted, and the assessee was granted immunity under Section 273B.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasoning that the assessee cannot claim exemption without filing a return is incorrect. The AO must first determine if the assessee is a Sikkimese and if their income is exempt under Section 10(26AAA), and also re-examine the quantum of additions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasoning that the assessee cannot claim exemption without filing a return is incorrect. The AO must first determine if the assessee is a Sikkimese and if their income is exempt under Section 10(26AAA), and also re-examine the quantum of additions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s reasoning that the assessee cannot claim exemption without filing a return is incorrect. The AO must first determine if the assessee is a Sikkimese and if their income is exempt under Section 10(26AAA), and also re-examine the quantum of additions.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable because the tax effect was less than Rs. 50 lakhs and no exception to the circular was demonstrated. The delay in filing was also noted but not the primary reason for dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity of hearing by both the AO and the CIT(A). Therefore, the case was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits after providing a proper opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a petrol pump dealer, was authorized to collect Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) in lieu of sales as per a government notification. Therefore, the deposits could not be termed as unexplained money.

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not permissible if no exempt income is earned by the assessee. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective and cannot be applied retrospectively.