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).
The Tribunal held that unsecured loans cannot be treated as unexplained when identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are fully documented. Since the AO ignored evidence and relied only on non-appearance, the addition was deleted.
The ITAT found the assessee was not required to maintain books under Section 44AA. The recall led to cancellation of the Section 271AAB penalty for commodities trading income.
Tribunal ruled that appeals delayed beyond a reasonable period without valid reasons cannot be admitted for consideration under Section 263.
The Tribunal confirmed that unsecured loans of ₹1.77 crore were genuine, supported by account-payee cheques, NBFC registration, bank statements, and confirmations. AO’s additions were based on presumption and ignored documentary evidence, so the deletions were rightly upheld.
