The ITAT Kolkata restored Section 12A registration and Section 11 exemption to the Chamber of Commerce, holding that its objects and activities are charitable in nature, similar to the Indian Chamber of Commerce. The Tribunal applied the rule of consistency, noting the Chamber’s registration was already granted for subsequent assessment years.
The ITAT Kolkata ruled that no disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made if the taxpayer did not earn any exempt income during the relevant financial year. The Tribunal fully allowed the appeal, reiterating the established legal position against mechanical disallowance when there is no dividend or tax-free income.
ITAT Kolkata held that reassessment proceedings were invalid as the notice under Section 148 failed to disclose mandatory approval under Section 151. The Tribunal found the reopening to be mechanical and without independent application of mind, rendering the reassessment void ab initio.
The ITAT Kolkata deleted the Rs.10.25 crore addition made under Section 68, ruling that an addition cannot be sustained solely on a survey statement that was subsequently retracted, citing coercion. The court found the loans were genuine, routed through banking channels, supported by evidence, and later repaid with TDS deducted interest.
ITAT Kolkata quashed the reopening assessment for AY 2015-16, ruling the Section 148 notice issued on 31.07.2022 was time-barred. This decision strictly follows the Rajeev Bansal (SC) judgment, which held that the TOLA extension for reopening notices did not apply to AY 2015-16 beyond 31.03.2021.
The ITAT Kolkata deleted the Section 68 addition of Rs.1.67 crore, holding that loans proven to be repaid through banking channels with TDS deducted on interest cannot be treated as bogus accommodation entries.1 The ruling emphasizes that additions based solely on a retracted survey statement lack evidentiary value, especially without corroborating material.
ITAT Kolkata quashed the reassessment for two assessment years, ruling it was invalid as the reopening occurred beyond the four-year limit from the original scrutiny assessment without any allegation of the taxpayer failing to disclose material facts. This aligns with the Supreme Court’s mandate under the first proviso to Section 147.
The ITAT Kolkata condoned a massive 2581-day delay in filing an appeal, accepting the taxpayer’s claim of being unaware of the CIT(A)’s order as a reasonable cause. The case was sent back to the AO for fresh adjudication, subject to the payment of Rs.25,000 cost.
The ITAT Kolkata set aside an ex parte assessment and appellate order, restoring the case to the AO for fresh adjudication due to the assessee’s continuous non-compliance.1 The Tribunal granted this final opportunity on the condition that the assessee pays a cost of Rs.50,000 to Legal Aid Services within 60 days.
ITAT ruled that CPC’s adjustment denying the Section 80IE deduction without prior intimation may violate Section 143(1)(a); the matter was remanded to verify if the assessee was given an opportunity of being heard.
