ITAT Kolkata Judgments — October 2024

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the case to the file of the AO. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant documents to the AO for a fresh decision.

The tribunal found that the assessee did not file proper details or explanations before the lower authorities. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that even in a best judgment assessment, the AO must consider the documents furnished by the assessee. The CIT(A) and AO failed to consider the audited financial statements and other evidences provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. The penalty levied was deleted as it was based on the quantum additions that were now being re-examined.

The Tribunal held that even in a best judgment assessment, the AO must consider the documents furnished by the assessee. The CIT(A) and AO failed to consider the audited financial statements and other evidences provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. The penalty levied was deleted as it was based on the quantum additions that were now being re-examined.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO. The AO was directed to examine Form 67 and grant the FTC accordingly.

The Tribunal held that in cases of completed/unabated assessments, additions cannot be made under section 153A without incriminating material found during the search. The deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that in cases of completed/unabated assessments, additions cannot be made under section 153A without incriminating material found during the search. The deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that in cases of completed/unabated assessments, additions cannot be made under section 153A without incriminating material found during the search. The deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that in cases of completed/unabated assessments, additions cannot be made under section 153A without incriminating material found during the search. The deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that in cases of completed/unabated assessments, additions cannot be made under section 153A without incriminating material found during the search. The deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that in cases of completed/unabated assessments, additions cannot be made under section 153A without incriminating material found during the search. The deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that Section 69 is not applicable when investments are already recorded in the books of account. It also found the estimation of income on share sales to be without any substantive basis.

The Tribunal held that for completed and unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. The AO assumed jurisdiction for block assessment under Section 153A following a search or requisition. Pending assessments would abate, but for completed assessments, the AO can only assess or reassess income if incriminating material is found. If no incriminating material is unearthed, the AO cannot make additions in respect of completed assessments based on other materials. The Tribunal agreed with the Delhi High Court in Kabul Chawla and Gujarat High Court in Saumya Construction, stating that no addition can be made in completed assessments in the absence of incriminating material. The Tribunal found the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. squarely applicable as the AO made additions for completed and unabated assessment years without any nexus to incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld. The decision for AY 2012-13 was applied mutatis mutandis to AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18.

The Tribunal held that for completed and unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. The AO assumed jurisdiction for block assessment under Section 153A following a search or requisition. Pending assessments would abate, but for completed assessments, the AO can only assess or reassess income if incriminating material is found. If no incriminating material is unearthed, the AO cannot make additions in respect of completed assessments based on other materials. The Tribunal agreed with the Delhi High Court in Kabul Chawla and Gujarat High Court in Saumya Construction, stating that no addition can be made in completed assessments in the absence of incriminating material. The Tribunal found the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. squarely applicable as the AO made additions for completed and unabated assessment years without any nexus to incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld. The decision for AY 2012-13 was applied mutatis mutandis to AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18.

The Tribunal held that the subsidies received by the assessee in the form of sales tax refund under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2004 were capital in nature, intended for the expansion of the existing industry. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal held that for completed and unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. The AO assumed jurisdiction for block assessment under Section 153A following a search or requisition. Pending assessments would abate, but for completed assessments, the AO can only assess or reassess income if incriminating material is found. If no incriminating material is unearthed, the AO cannot make additions in respect of completed assessments based on other materials. The Tribunal agreed with the Delhi High Court in Kabul Chawla and Gujarat High Court in Saumya Construction, stating that no addition can be made in completed assessments in the absence of incriminating material. The Tribunal found the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. squarely applicable as the AO made additions for completed and unabated assessment years without any nexus to incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld. The decision for AY 2012-13 was applied mutatis mutandis to AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully demonstrated with evidence that the share capital and share premium were received from private limited companies whose identities and creditworthiness were proven by their available funds. The genuineness of the transactions was also proved as these investments were made in the regular course of their business activity. The Tribunal noted that the share applicants had complied with Section 133(6) notices, provided bank statements, were registered with the Registrar of Companies, and were active in business. Crucially, all six alleged share subscribers were scrutinized under Section 143(3) for the same assessment year, and in most cases, no adverse view was taken regarding their investments in the assessee company, or where additions were made in the hands of the share applicants, it indicated the source of funds was available. Since the assessee proved all three limbs (identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness) and the Revenue failed to controvert this with any evidence, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition of Rs. 20 crore made under Section 68. Therefore, the effective grounds of appeal of the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law as the AO lacked tangible material and relied on suspicion rather than a reasoned belief. The AO failed to correlate the information with the assessee's accounts despite the assessee's denial.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was restored for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that in cases of completed/unabated assessments, additions cannot be made under section 153A without incriminating material found during the search. The deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the loose sheets dated January 5, 2018, could not be considered for Assessment Year 2019-20. Therefore, the addition made in the current year was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that in cases of completed/unabated assessments, additions cannot be made under section 153A without incriminating material found during the search. The deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the principles of natural justice were not followed. The assessment order was set aside and remanded to the AO for de novo assessment, directing consideration of all evidence and submissions.

The Tribunal held that the subsidies received by the assessee in the form of sales tax refund under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2004 were capital in nature, intended for the expansion of the existing industry. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and decided to give the assessee a second chance to prove the veracity of purchases. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that an application for final registration under Section 80G(5)(iii) cannot be rejected on the ground that the institution had already commenced activities prior to obtaining provisional approval. The application is considered within limitation if filed after provisional approval.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that in cases of completed/unabated assessments, additions cannot be made under section 153A without incriminating material found during the search. The deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that in cases of completed/unabated assessments, additions cannot be made under section 153A without incriminating material found during the search. The deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that in cases of completed/unabated assessments, additions cannot be made under section 153A without incriminating material found during the search. The deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that in cases of completed/unabated assessments, additions cannot be made under section 153A without incriminating material found during the search. The deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that in cases of completed/unabated assessments, additions cannot be made under section 153A without incriminating material found during the search. The deletion of additions by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal held that for completed and unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A can only be made if incriminating material is found during the search. The AO assumed jurisdiction for block assessment under Section 153A following a search or requisition. Pending assessments would abate, but for completed assessments, the AO can only assess or reassess income if incriminating material is found. If no incriminating material is unearthed, the AO cannot make additions in respect of completed assessments based on other materials. The Tribunal agreed with the Delhi High Court in Kabul Chawla and Gujarat High Court in Saumya Construction, stating that no addition can be made in completed assessments in the absence of incriminating material. The Tribunal found the Supreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. squarely applicable as the AO made additions for completed and unabated assessment years without any nexus to incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld. The decision for AY 2012-13 was applied mutatis mutandis to AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed under Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the tax effect being lower than the prescribed limits as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The reasoning was that the Department's representative could not controvert the assessee's contention that the appeal fell below the monetary threshold set by the circular. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the Revenue with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limits in CBDT circulars are liable to be dismissed, unless they fall under specific exceptions. The Department was granted liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application if facts emerged indicating the appeal was adjudicable on merits based on the exceptions mentioned in the CBDT Circular. No other issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed due to the tax effect being lower than the prescribed limits as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The circular, dated 17.09.2024, prescribes monetary limits for filing appeals by the Revenue before the Tribunal and states that these revised limits apply retrospectively to pending appeals. The Departmental Representative conceded that the tax effect in this appeal fell below the stipulated threshold. Therefore, in accordance with the CBDT's directive and the concession made by the Revenue, the appeal was dismissed on this procedural ground. No findings were made on the merits of the additions.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to grant the assessee a further opportunity to present its case before the CIT-A. The issue was remitted back to the CIT-A for a fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT-A passed an ex parte order without following the principles of natural justice, as an adjournment request by the assessee was not considered. The case was remitted back to the CIT-A for a fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the grounds genuine. It held that the cash deposits during demonetization did not show an unusual pattern and were supported by the opening balance. The Tribunal also found that the discounts were adequately demonstrated and not unwarranted.

The Tribunal held that the cooperative bank should be treated as a cooperative society, citing various judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty could not be sustained as the transactions were carried out through the stock exchange in the normal course and there was no specific evidence to prove the assessee's involvement in manipulation. The loss was a small percentage of the total income and investment.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form-9A was due to a bona fide reason, specifically the hospitalization of the trustee responsible for tax matters due to COVID-19. Citing various judicial precedents, the Tribunal condoned the delay.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the circumstances explained. The matter was then remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide a proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's net profit margin was only 3.86% and the establishment charges used were reasonable. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s direction to disallow 10% of net profit was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO's order was cryptic and lacked justification for enhancing the gross profit without rejecting the books of accounts. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition on account of enhanced gross profit and allowed the benefit of brought forward losses.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as the explanation provided by the assessee was considered genuine. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed contrary to the CBDT's circular increasing monetary limits for appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given a further opportunity to represent its case before the CIT(A) for the ends of justice. The issue is remitted to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.