ITAT Kolkata upheld the deletion of disallowance relating to brought forward losses of an amalgamating company after finding that the amalgamated entity had continued the business and retained the prescribed fixed assets. The Tribunal held that there was no evidence showing non-compliance with Section 72A(2).
The Tribunal held that an inadvertent mistake in Schedule 112A relating to the acquisition period of mutual fund units could be rectified under Section 154. Since the evidence showed that the assets were acquired before 31.01.2018, the Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the capital gains after verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to additional interest under Section 244A(1A) because the Assessing Officer failed to pass the appeal effect order within the statutory timeline.
ITAT Kolkata held that TDS under Section 194C was not required on materials purchased for installation work. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was reduced substantially after excluding the material component.
The ITAT Kolkata set aside the appellate order on penalty under Section 270A and remanded the matter to the CIT(A). The Tribunal held that the penalty issue should be reconsidered along with the pending quantum appeal.
The ITAT Kolkata held that cash payments made through agents for procuring paddy from farmers were covered by Rule 6DD exceptions. Consequently, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was deleted.
The ITAT Kolkata found that the assessees share capital remained unchanged throughout the year and no fresh capital was received. As a result, the addition under Section 68 for alleged unexplained share capital was deleted.
The ITAT Kolkata held that the Assessing Officer could not examine issues beyond the limited scrutiny mandate without following CBDT-prescribed procedures for conversion into complete scrutiny. As a result, the interest disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii) was deleted.
The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of advertisement and publicity expenses after finding that sponsorship of football teams, tournaments, and green movement initiatives was undertaken for business promotion. It held that such expenditure qualified as allowable business expenses.
The Tribunal held that deposits received and remitted by the assessee as a Bank of India business correspondent could not be treated as unexplained money. The addition of ₹2.31 crore under Section 69A was therefore deleted.
