ITAT Kolkata Judgments — November 2024

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the interest disallowance was correct. It was noted that the assessee earned more interest income than it paid as interest, and not charging interest on certain loans was based on commercial expediency.

The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be forced to withdraw a valid claim by a letter, and that such changes require a revised return. Relying on High Court precedents, the Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal found that a significant portion of the amount (₹2,37,45,000/-) was share application money pending allotment from FY 2010-11, making Section 68 inapplicable for the current year. For the remaining amount, the Tribunal noted that the subscriber company was assessed and had sufficient capital and revenue, and the AO failed to prove the assessee's failure to establish the transaction's genuineness.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid due to the AO's failure to conduct proper verification of the information received. The Tribunal quashed the reopening of assessment, following a similar High Court decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to the AO and CIT(A) regarding the population criteria for its rural branches. However, the assessee has now submitted additional documents and therefore, the case is remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the assessee's explanation of illness and the COVID-19 period. The Tribunal held that substantial justice requires giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to the AO and CIT(A) regarding the population criteria for its rural branches. However, the assessee has now produced relevant documents before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the case to the CIT(E)'s file, directing them to pass a fresh order after perusing the documents submitted by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the interest income was not taxable in the hands of the assessee as it had already been assessed in the hands of the Netherlands entity. The mere crediting of the refund and interest to the assessee's bank account post-amalgamation did not determine the nature of the receipt.

The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, finding that the share subscribers were related parties with sufficient income and net worth to make the investment. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the AO's findings about non-compliance were negated and all necessary evidence was provided.

The Tribunal held that Section 69C is for unexplained expenditure not recorded in books, and thus incorrectly applied to sales transactions. It directed that only a profit element (commission) on these accommodation sales should be added to the income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to the AO and CIT(A) regarding the population criteria for its rural branches. However, the assessee has now submitted additional documents and therefore, the case is remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to the AO and CIT(A) regarding the population criteria for its rural branches. However, the assessee has now submitted additional documents and therefore, the case is remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to the AO and CIT(A) regarding the population criteria for its rural branches. However, the assessee has now submitted additional documents and therefore, the case is remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that additional grounds of appeal can be raised at any appellate stage, citing the Supreme Court decisions in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT. The Tribunal found that the issue raised was a purely legal one, requiring no further factual verification. The undisputed facts were that the search under Section 132(1) was conducted on December 9, 2016, and the impugned assessment years were unabated and had attained finality. Crucially, there was no reference to any incriminating material found during the search that supported the additions made by the AO in the assessment framed under Section 153A read with Section 143(3). Consequently, the additions were considered without jurisdiction. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT v. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. to hold that in cases of unabated and completed assessments on the date of search, no addition can be made in the absence of incriminating material. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the additions. This decision was applied mutatis mutandis to the other appeals (IT(SS)A Nos. 176 to 178/KOL/2023).

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid due to the AO's failure to conduct proper verification of the information received. The Tribunal quashed the reopening of assessment, following a similar High Court decision.

The Tribunal held that the bank account did not belong to the assessee and the transactions were conducted by her former employer and his son. Therefore, the additions made in the assessee's name were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's order was cryptic and mechanical, failing to examine the evidence provided by the assessee. Mere non-production of directors is not sufficient grounds to deem share capital as non-genuine, especially when substantial documentation was submitted.

The Tribunal held that the bank account did not belong to the assessee but was operated by her deceased employer and his son for unaccounted transactions. Therefore, the additions made in the assessee's name were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the bank account did not belong to the assessee, and the deposits were made by her former employer and his son. Therefore, the additions were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the bank account did not belong to the assessee but was operated by her deceased employer and his son for unaccounted transactions. Therefore, the additions made in the assessee's name were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the bank account did not belong to the assessee but was operated by her deceased employer and his son for unaccounted transactions. Therefore, the additions made in the assessee's name were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO's action constituted gross non-application of mind and negligence, causing harassment to the assessee. The reassessment order was quashed as it was framed erroneously.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made by the Assessing Officer in an assessment carried out under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search action, particularly in cases of completed or non-abated assessments. This finding was based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in "Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd." [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC). The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's representative conceded that the issue was covered by this Supreme Court judgment. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made by the Assessing Officer in an assessment carried out under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search action, particularly in cases of completed or non-abated assessments. This finding was based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in "Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd." [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC). The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's representative conceded that the issue was covered by this Supreme Court judgment. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is no longer proceeding on merits.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) are not applicable to leasehold transactions. The CIT(A) had correctly observed that the transfer of leasehold rights in land is not covered under this section.

The Tribunal held that the sales tax subsidy received for setting up a mega plant is a capital receipt. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit the additional ground and treat the subsidy as capital in nature.

The Tribunal held that the sales tax subsidy received for setting up a mega plant is a capital receipt. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit the additional ground and treat the subsidy as capital in nature.

The Tribunal held that the AO's explanation for the delay was not satisfactory and that the CIT(A)'s order was legally correct. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and upheld it.

The Tribunal held that for two specific payments related to October 2020 salary, the due date for deposit should be reckoned from the month of salary payment (November 2020). Therefore, these payments were considered within time and allowable as a deduction.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, deleting both additions. The CIT(A) found that the AO wrongly applied the percentage of completion method and that profits were recognized on a year-on-year basis, with actual losses incurred in road development.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to a change of opinion and the issuance of notices to a non-existent entity, rendering the proceedings void ab initio. The CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A must be restricted to the amount of exempt income earned by the assessee, following the Supreme Court's decision in State Bank of Patiala. The addition made by the AO was therefore reduced.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of justice, remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted another opportunity to present evidence for the cash deposits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was unable to participate in proceedings due to factors beyond his control and that principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity. Therefore, the case was remanded for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on 'borrowed satisfaction' as the AO did not conduct independent investigation or application of mind to the information received. The reopening was therefore quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to higher depreciation on oil drilling rigs, following the precedent set by the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court. The nature of the equipment and its user are similar to those used by mineral oil concerns.

The Tribunal held that the sales tax subsidy received for setting up a mega plant is a capital receipt. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit the additional ground and treat the subsidy as capital in nature.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the revenue was contrary to the Department's policy decision on litigation reduction. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that for the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present all supporting documents to the AO. The AO is directed to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties and examining the documents.

The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption solely on account of delayed filing of Form-10B, which was only by 20 days, is not justified. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not passed the order on merits but rather dismissed it for non-response. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the case to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society on surplus funds invested in bank deposits qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. This decision was based on jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal precedents.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The assessee, a senior citizen with medical issues, was granted an opportunity to present their case and submit supporting documents.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 16 days, finding sufficient cause and emphasizing the principle of advancing substantial justice. The Tribunal directed the assessee to present its case before the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's withdrawal petition and, in the absence of any objection from the department, allowed the appeal to be withdrawn. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the issue was not conclusively examined at the CIT(A)'s stage due to the assessee's non-compliance. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society on surplus funds invested in bank deposits qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. This decision was based on jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal precedents.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the AO in Surat was invalid as it lacked territorial jurisdiction over the assessee. The jurisdiction for non-resident Indians in that region was vested with the Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation and Transfer Pricing) - Kolkata.