ITAT Kolkata Judgments — December 2024

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the cash deposits were adequately explained by the assessee's sales and that there was no abnormal rise in cash sales. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity.

The Tribunal held that the reasons for reopening the assessment were vague and based on a borrowed satisfaction. The AO lacked tangible material to believe that income had escaped assessment, as the information about share trading was already on record.

The Tribunal held that in the case of an unabated assessment year, additions under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can only be made with reference to incriminating materials seized during the search. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that the AO had not referred to any incriminating materials found during the search concerning the share capital/premium and the commission paid for arranging entries. The Tribunal relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC), which held that in completed/non-abated assessments, no addition can be made under Section 153A without incriminating material. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the additions was upheld. The issues in the other appeals were found to be substantially similar, and the decision in ITA No. 60/Kol/2024 was applied mutatis mutandis. All appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making the addition for marriage gifts as the assessee provided a list of recipients and the evidence remained unrebutted. The issue of closing capital balance was restored to the AO for fresh consideration after the assessee demonstrates the opening balance.

The Tribunal held that in the case of an unabated assessment year, additions under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, can only be made with reference to incriminating materials seized during the search. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that the AO had not referred to any incriminating materials found during the search concerning the share capital/premium and the commission paid for arranging entries. The Tribunal relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC), which held that in completed/non-abated assessments, no addition can be made under Section 153A without incriminating material. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the additions was upheld. The issues in the other appeals were found to be substantially similar, and the decision in ITA No. 60/Kol/2024 was applied mutatis mutandis. All appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to discharge the initial burden of proving the transaction between the assessee and the alleged shell company by providing specific details like the date and bank account. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that if an assessee has not earned any tax-exempt income, then no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. The addition made by the lower authorities was deleted based on this principle.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the belated filing without a condonation petition. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the trade discounts were not in the nature of commission or brokerage as there was no principal-agent relationship. Therefore, Section 194H was not applicable, and the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default.

The Tribunal found that the primary grievance of the assessee was the lack of sufficient opportunity of being heard by the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the trade discounts were not in the nature of commission or brokerage as there was no principal-agent relationship. Therefore, Section 194H was not applicable, and the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause. It held that salary accrued to a non-resident seafarer for services rendered outside India on a foreign ship is not taxable in India merely because it is credited to an NRE account, following a CBDT circular and jurisdictional High Court decisions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause. It held that salary accrued to a non-resident seafarer for services rendered outside India on a foreign ship is not taxable in India merely because it is credited to an NRE account, following a CBDT circular and jurisdictional High Court decisions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the Section 80IA deduction and the treatment of mining compensation as revenue expenditure. It also ruled that Section 14A disallowance cannot be added back for computing book profit under Section 115JB, following various High Court decisions.

The Tribunal noted that the issue regarding the grant of an exemption certificate under Section 10(23C)(vi) was still pending before the CIT(E). Therefore, the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication based on any consequential order from the CIT(E).

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness of creditors, and genuineness of transactions. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that dismissing an appeal solely on procedural grounds without examining the merits is not justified. It noted that the assessee failed to appear due to non-receipt of notices sent to an incorrect email address.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by deciding the appeal on merits after rejecting the condonation of delay. This procedural irregularity was rectified by condoning the delay and remanding the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal due to opting for the VSV scheme. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that merely filing income tax details, share application forms, allotment letters, and bank statements of applicants is insufficient to discharge the onus under Section 68. The financial health of the assessee and inadequate discharge of onus led to confirming the addition.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had already received deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), rendering the appeal on Section 80P(2)(a)(i) academic. The appeal was dismissed, but the issue was left open for future assessment years.

The Tribunal found deficiencies in the AO's fact-finding and noted that the assessee denied involvement in the transactions. The Tribunal decided to remand the cases back to the AO for further investigation.

The Tribunal noted that the issue regarding the grant of an exemption certificate under Section 10(23C)(vi) was still pending before the CIT(E). Therefore, the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication based on any consequential order from the CIT(E).

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on uncorroborated information without proper application of mind by the AO. Furthermore, the AO did not make any addition on the original grounds for reopening.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) technically did not err as the rectification was outside their scope. However, they noted that the CIT(A) could have entertained the delay condonation under Circular No. 7/2018 for AY 2016-17.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the tax effect being lower than the prescribed monetary limits for filing appeals as per the relevant CBDT circular.

The Tribunal found deficiencies in the AO's fact-finding and noted that the assessee denied involvement and had filed police complaints. The Tribunal also considered prior ITAT findings highlighting similar fact-finding issues.

The Tribunal found deficiencies in the AO's fact-finding and noted that the assessee denied involvement in the transactions. The Tribunal decided to remand the cases back to the AO for further investigation.

The Tribunal found deficiencies in the AO's fact-finding and noted that the assessee denied involvement in the transactions. The Tribunal decided to remand the cases back to the AO for further investigation with the Sales Tax and Police authorities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- as the AO lacked material to support the suspicion of suppressed expenses. The issue regarding Dividend Distribution Tax was remanded to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal noted that the issue regarding the grant of an exemption certificate under Section 10(23C)(vi) was still pending before the CIT(E). Therefore, the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication based on any consequential order from the CIT(E).

The Tribunal, considering the ex-parte nature of the orders and for the interest of justice, decided to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide evidence.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had discharged its burden of proving the identity, creditworthiness of creditors, and genuineness of transactions. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the issue regarding the grant of an exemption certificate under Section 10(23C)(vi) was still pending before the CIT(E). Therefore, the appeals were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication based on any consequential order from the CIT(E).

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that there was no valid reason to deny the cash deposits of Rs. 13,05,000, considering the assessee's business and turnover. The addition made under Section 68 was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause for the late filing. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present all necessary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were invalid. The reasoning was based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC). This decision states that in cases of completed or non-abated assessments, the Assessing Officer cannot make additions under Section 153A if no incriminating material is found during the search action. The Ld. DR for the Revenue fairly admitted that the issue was covered by this Supreme Court judgment. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's appeals. The operative direction was that all the appeals of the revenue were dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were invalid. The reasoning was based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC). This decision states that in cases of completed or non-abated assessments, the Assessing Officer cannot make additions under Section 153A if no incriminating material is found during the search action. The Ld. DR for the Revenue fairly admitted that the issue was covered by this Supreme Court judgment. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's appeals. The operative direction was that all the appeals of the revenue were dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It decided to remand the matters back to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the reasons for reassessment in the order under Section 148A(d) differed from those stated in the notice under Section 148A(b). This discrepancy violated the principles of natural justice and the statutory scheme of Section 148A.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were invalid. The reasoning was based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC). This decision states that in cases of completed or non-abated assessments, the Assessing Officer cannot make additions under Section 153A if no incriminating material is found during the search action. The Ld. DR for the Revenue fairly admitted that the issue was covered by this Supreme Court judgment. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's appeals. The operative direction was that all the appeals of the revenue were dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as the approval was not obtained from the competent authority as required by Section 151(2) of the Act, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to low tax effect as per the CBDT circular. The exception clause cited by the Revenue regarding organized tax evasion was not applicable as there was no evidence of such activity.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to low tax effect as per the CBDT circular. The exception clause cited by the Revenue regarding organized tax evasion was not applicable as there was no evidence of such activity.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were invalid. The reasoning was based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC). This decision states that in cases of completed or non-abated assessments, the Assessing Officer cannot make additions under Section 153A if no incriminating material is found during the search action. The Ld. DR for the Revenue fairly admitted that the issue was covered by this Supreme Court judgment. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's appeals. The operative direction was that all the appeals of the revenue were dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not receive any sale consideration during the year, as the flats were sold by the developer and the entire sale consideration was received by the developer. The assessee merely signed the sale deeds as a co-owner.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were invalid. The reasoning was based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC). This decision states that in cases of completed or non-abated assessments, the Assessing Officer cannot make additions under Section 153A if no incriminating material is found during the search action. The Ld. DR for the Revenue fairly admitted that the issue was covered by this Supreme Court judgment. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's appeals. The operative direction was that all the appeals of the revenue were dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.