ITAT Kolkata ruled that payments for composing and DTP work are contractual, not technical services, and thus taxable under Section 194C, not Section 194J of Income Tax Act.
ITAT Kolkata deleted a Rs.7.11 crore addition under Section 68, ruling that an assessee’s comprehensive documentary evidence (PAN, bank statements) cannot be dismissed merely because subscribers failed to appear for summons. The onus shifted back to the Revenue.
The Kolkata ITAT deleted a Rs.31 crore unexplained cash credit addition under Section 68 on the sale of shares, ruling the AO mechanically relied on an investigation report without fresh evidence. The tribunal held that investments accepted by the Department in previous years and confirmed via an NCLT merger cannot be summarily taxed upon sale.
The Kolkata ITAT quashed the Section 263 revision, confirming that the Assessing Officer (AO) had specifically examined and accepted the ICDS adjustments during scrutiny. The tribunal held that when the AO conducts due inquiry and takes a plausible view, the assessment is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue’s interest.
ITAT quashed a reassessment, ruling that S 148 notice was invalid because it was issued before AO formally received mandatory sanction from PCIT under S 151. Relying on Supreme Court, Tribunal held that internal approval is insufficient; communication of sanction to AO is a jurisdictional prerequisite.
The ITAT Kolkata dismissed an appeal filed by Santhosh Devi Soni as withdrawn after the assessee elected to settle the tax dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas (DTVSV) Scheme, 2024. The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal request since the dispute was resolved under the settlement scheme.
The ITAT deleted the addition for cash deposits made during demonetization, concluding that taxing the same business receipts twice by first accepting sales and then applying Section 69A was unsustainable under the law.
ITAT Cuttack remanded a demonetization case back to CIT(A), granting legal heir of deceased assessee a fresh opportunity. Tribunal ruled that appeal, which involved factual verification of large cash deposits, should be adjudicated on merits after allowing heir to furnish supporting documents.
Relying on the Schneider Electric judgment of the Delhi High Court, the ITAT held that absence of a separate immunity order within one month does not justify penalty imposition.
The ITAT Kolkata allowed a trusts appeal, ruling its anonymous donations were not taxable under Section 115BBC after the trust demonstrated its objects included both religious and charitable purposes via an amended deed. The ruling overturned lower authority additions that had incorrectly classified the trust as purely charitable.
