The Tribunal ruled that payments made directly to truck drivers, and not transporters, fall outside Section 40A(3) limits when within the statutory threshold. Additions based on incorrect assumptions were set aside.
Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) ITAT Kolkata Deletes ₹21.39 Cr Section 68 Addition—Share Capital & Premium Cannot Be Added Solely for Non-Appearance of Investors The Kolkata Bench of the ITAT allowed the appeal of Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2008-09 and deleted the addition of ₹21.39 crore made under section 68 […]
The issue was whether reassessment notices issued after the extended period under TOLA were valid. The Tribunal held that post–Rajeev Bansal, notices beyond the surviving limitation are time-barred and void.
The issue was whether penalty could be levied despite disclosure of undisclosed income during search. The Tribunal held that when the assessee explains the manner of earning income and pays due tax, no penalty is leviable.
The Tribunal held that cash gifts received from relatives covered under section 56(2)(vii) cannot be taxed as unexplained credits. Once identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are proved, section 68 has no application.
The issue was whether Section 153C proceedings could continue when seized material was handed over after 01.04.2021. The Tribunal ruled that such notices are barred by law, rendering the assessment void.
The Revenue treated seized cash entries as unexplained income under Section 69A. The Tribunal ruled that receipts from agricultural activities are exempt and cannot be taxed merely based on seized notings.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot survive where sales were already offered to tax and later added again under section 68. The key takeaway is that double taxation cannot result in penalty when no tax was sought to be evaded.
The tax authorities denied Section 54 relief citing delay in completing construction. The Tribunal ruled that Section 54 is a beneficial provision and does not mandate full completion within three years.
The issue was whether an assessment is valid when notice under Section 143(2) is issued by an officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction. The Tribunal held such notice invalid and quashed the assessment as void ab initio.
