The ITAT ruled that payments for typing and DTP services fall under Section 194C, not 194J, and correctly attract 2% TDS. As a result, the addition made under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted.
The Tribunal held the reassessment invalid since notices and the final order were issued in the name of a dead assessee despite the Department being informed. Key takeaway: assessments against deceased persons are void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that purchase from a State Government entity cannot be undervalued, deleting Rs. 6.59 crore addition under Section 56(2)(x).
ITAT held that managing multiple bank accounts justified salary expenses claimed under Section 57(iii). The ruling restores full deduction and reinforces that recurring administrative costs can be allowable against interest income.
Ramchandra Ingot India Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Investments Accepted in Earlier Scrutiny Cannot Be Treated as Bogus u/s 68 on Sale—5% Profit Estimation by CIT(A) Deleted; The assessee and the Revenue filed twelve cross-appeals for AYs 2016-17 to 2021-22 against separate orders of CIT(A)-27, Kolkata. The central dispute arose from additions made u/s […]
With all Section 68 additions deleted across the three years, the basis for penalties under Section 271(1)(c) disappeared. The Tribunal directed complete removal of penalties, highlighting that concealment cannot be presumed when additions themselves lack merit. The ruling reinforces the principle that penalty proceedings cannot survive defective assessments.
Tribunal invalidates reassessment where AO relied on incorrect data and PCIT granted mere Yes approval. Highlights importance of independent application of mind under Sections 147/148/151.
ITAT Kolkata struck down AO’s whimsical treatment of LTCG as bogus while simultaneously accepting STCG from the same shares. The Tribunal deleted the entire ₹53.24 lakh addition, noting both gains arose from identical transactions and evidence.
ITAT Kolkata deleted ₹3.32 crore addition under Section 68, holding that complete documentary evidence proved the genuineness and identity of investors. Low income or meagre business activity of subscriber companies cannot justify treating share capital as unexplained.
Lease rentals of ₹2.88 crore from the company’s warehousing complex were rightly classified as income from house property, reversing the AO’s business income classification. This restored the standard deduction of ₹83.38 lakh under Section 24(1).
