ITAT Kolkata Judgments — December 2024

The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the assessee being an elderly lady. Since crucial documents were filed for the first time before the Tribunal, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, the distance of agricultural land from municipal limits should be measured by the shortest road distance, as per CBDT circular. The distance was found to be more than 8 kms.

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 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 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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The dismissal was based on the tax effect of the disputed addition being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 for filing appeals.

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 found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex parte and dismissed without adjudicating on merits, which is not justified. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present her case.

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 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 loss was clearly stated in the audited financial statement, indicating no concealment of income. Merely disallowing a claimed loss, especially when debatable issues are raised, does not amount to concealment for levying penalty.

The Tribunal noted that the identity of the investor companies was established, but creditworthiness and genuineness were doubted due to non-attendance of directors. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to prove the bonafides of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that once the assessee stopped claiming depreciation and let out the property for rent, it ceased to be a business asset. Therefore, the gain on sale should be treated as long-term capital gain.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned. Considering no borrowed funds were used, a certain percentage of the exempt income was justified for administrative expenses.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the case for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was contrary to the CBDT's policy decision to reduce litigation by increasing monetary limits for appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that capital gains/loss arises when assets are distributed, not necessarily when liquidation orders are passed. Based on the conveyance deed executed on 15.09.2017, the short-term capital loss was allowable in AY 2018-19.

The Tribunal held that capital gains/loss comes into play when the asset is distributed by the liquidator. Since the conveyance deed for asset distribution was executed in FY 2017-18 (AY 2018-19), the short-term capital loss was allowable in that assessment year.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form 10B, citing various High Court decisions that treat such delays as curable procedural defects. The AO was directed to grant the exemption as per law.

The Tribunal held that the case should be decided on merits rather than technicalities like delay, citing Supreme Court judgments emphasizing liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. The orders of the CIT(A) and AO were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the case should be decided on merits rather than technicalities like delay, citing Supreme Court judgments emphasizing liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. The orders of the CIT(A) and AO were set aside.

The Tribunal held that capital gains/loss comes into play when the asset is distributed by the liquidator. Since the conveyance deed for asset distribution was executed in FY 2017-18 (AY 2018-19), the short-term capital loss was allowable in that assessment year.

The Tribunal held that capital gains/loss arises when assets are distributed, not necessarily when liquidation orders are passed. Based on the conveyance deed executed on 15.09.2017, the short-term capital loss was allowable in AY 2018-19.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as they did not fall under the exceptions provided in the CBDT circulars. The Revenue's contention that the case involved organized tax evasion was not supported by the facts.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed contrary to the CBDT's policy decision on monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as they did not fall under the exceptions provided in the CBDT circulars. The Revenue's contention that the case involved organized tax evasion was not supported by the facts.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the assessee's health issues and the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' as per Supreme Court judgments. The CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as they did not fall under the exceptions provided in the CBDT circulars. The Revenue's contention that the case involved organized tax evasion was not supported by the facts.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was contrary to the CBDT's policy decision to reduce litigation by increasing monetary limits for appeals. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the assessee's health issues and relying on Supreme Court judgments for a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, directing a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's model of collecting toll taxes indicated a business model, not a no-profit-no-loss operation. It also ruled that the proviso to Section 12(2) for retrospective exemption was not applicable as assessment proceedings were not pending before the AO and the proviso was omitted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 272A(1)(d) was not justified. Considering the Covid-19 pandemic period and the college's use as a shelter, the non-compliance was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control and without any intention to evade taxes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's model of collecting toll taxes indicated a business model, not a no-profit-no-loss operation. It also ruled that the proviso to Section 12(2) for retrospective exemption was not applicable as assessment proceedings were not pending before the AO and the proviso was omitted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get an opportunity to present its case. In the interest of substantive justice, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. It remanded the issue of VAT disallowance back to the PCIT for re-examination of a newly submitted corrigendum. However, it struck down the PCIT's direction to tax unexplained purchases at the enhanced rate under Section 115BBE due to lack of specific section invocation by the AO or PCIT.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. This was done to ensure a fair and just decision after examining the new evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issue of the validity of the intimation passed under section 143(1) and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the case did not fall under the exception for organized tax evasion. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024.

The Tribunal noted that while the Pr. CIT's direction to include the initial addition was technically correct, the addition itself had been deleted by the CIT(A) in a separate order. Therefore, the AO was directed to consider the CIT(A)'s order.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals, set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(A), and restored the matters to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh hearing.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO under Section 153C/143(3) were without jurisdiction. The Tribunal found that no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee, Santosh Kumar Kedia (HUF), was found and seized during the search action conducted on 06.10.2015. The additions were made solely on the basis of the return of income filed by the assessee and details provided by them. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC) and a coordinate bench decision in Trishul Hi-tech Industries vs. DCIT, which held that incriminating material found during a search is a prerequisite for making additions under Section 153A, and this principle should extend to assessments under Section 153C. The Tribunal reasoned that it would be absurd to assess a person searched based on incriminating material while assessing another person under Section 153C in connection with the same search without any such material. Consequently, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the additions. The ground of appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that considering the overall facts and circumstances, an estimation of profit at 1% of the undisclosed sales would be justified. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal restricted the net profit to 1% of the undisclosed sales of Rs.48,76,62,397/-, thereby partly allowing the appeal. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal directed the AO to take the net profit at 1% of the undisclosed sales of Rs.48,82,32,703/-, also partly allowing the appeal. Similarly, for AY 2017-18, the Tribunal directed the AO to take the net profit at 1% of the undisclosed sales of Rs.20,46,00,792/-, partly allowing the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that a reasonable estimation of profit, balancing the assessee's offered rate and the AO's higher estimation, is appropriate, and 1% is deemed fair in this context. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that considering the overall facts and circumstances, an estimation of profit at 1% of the undisclosed sales would be justified. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal restricted the net profit to 1% of the undisclosed sales of Rs.48,76,62,397/-, thereby partly allowing the appeal. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal directed the AO to take the net profit at 1% of the undisclosed sales of Rs.48,82,32,703/-, also partly allowing the appeal. Similarly, for AY 2017-18, the Tribunal directed the AO to take the net profit at 1% of the undisclosed sales of Rs.20,46,00,792/-, partly allowing the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that a reasonable estimation of profit, balancing the assessee's offered rate and the AO's higher estimation, is appropriate, and 1% is deemed fair in this context. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that considering the overall facts and circumstances, an estimation of profit at 1% of the undisclosed sales would be justified. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal restricted the net profit to 1% of the undisclosed sales of Rs.48,76,62,397/-, thereby partly allowing the appeal. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal directed the AO to take the net profit at 1% of the undisclosed sales of Rs.48,82,32,703/-, also partly allowing the appeal. Similarly, for AY 2017-18, the Tribunal directed the AO to take the net profit at 1% of the undisclosed sales of Rs.20,46,00,792/-, partly allowing the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that a reasonable estimation of profit, balancing the assessee's offered rate and the AO's higher estimation, is appropriate, and 1% is deemed fair in this context. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO under Section 153C/143(3) were without jurisdiction. The Tribunal found that no incriminating material pertaining to the assessee, Santosh Kumar Kedia (HUF), was found and seized during the search action conducted on 06.10.2015. The additions were made solely on the basis of the return of income filed by the assessee and details provided by them. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC) and a coordinate bench decision in Trishul Hi-tech Industries vs. DCIT, which held that incriminating material found during a search is a prerequisite for making additions under Section 153A, and this principle should extend to assessments under Section 153C. The Tribunal reasoned that it would be absurd to assess a person searched based on incriminating material while assessing another person under Section 153C in connection with the same search without any such material. Consequently, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO was directed to delete the additions. The ground of appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had deleted the addition of Rs. 2,40,00,000/- made by the AO under Section 68. The reasoning provided by the Ld. CIT(A), and accepted by the Tribunal, was that no incriminating materials were found during the search action relevant to the assessment year. The disallowances were made based on a statement recorded under Section 132(4)/131 and information from post-search inquiries. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Abhiser Buildwell (P) Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC). This precedent held that in cases of non-abated/completed assessments, no addition can be made under Section 153A in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. Therefore, the addition was not sustainable as it was not based on seized incriminating material. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and upheld it.

The Tribunal held that the appeals filed by the revenue were contrary to the Department's policy decision on monetary limits for appeals. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed in limine as not maintainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the lack of proper opportunity for hearing at both the AO and CIT(A) levels, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the AO for de novo assessment.