Kolkata tribunal

(→ for subcategory see right ) (for subcategory scroll Below)

Question: Whether assessment order would be void ab initio when the ld. Assessing Officer failed to issue a notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Further whether procsseding u/s 263 action can be taken: ITAT KOLKATA decided the issue on 27.8.2022
Is confirming of dis-allowance for Delayed deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESI u/s 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, 1961 despite the assessee contributing/depositing the same before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act is justified after amendmends in Explanation 5 of the section 43B. The ITAT- Kolkata in the case of Harendra Nath Biswas, Kolkata vs Dcit, Cir. 29, Kolkata on 16 July, 2021 ITA No.186/Kol/2021 decided the issue in favour of the assessee.
Can Ld. AO disallow the certain percentages of expenses when the expenses are supported only by self made vouchers and AR agreed to disallowance without pointing out any specific instances of unverifiable element therein? ITAT Kolkata decided on Apr 28, 2021. Section 143(3). Kindly click the link to get the order. https://www.bpmundraca.com/it-cases-239-2021/
When CIT can pass order u/s 263 by holding that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue? ITAT KOLKATA passed the order on 6th Jan 2021 in the case of RUNGTA MINES LTD. vs. PCIT?
Is punitive charges paid to the railways disallowable u/s 37(1) by holding as penalty. Ans is No. Order passed by ITAT KOLKATA on Nov 20, 2020 in the case of RUNGTA MINES PVT. LTD.vs. ACIT.
Section 10(13A), Rule 2A(h)‘Performance bonus’ does not form part of ‘salary’ as defined in clause (h) of Rule 2A for the purposes of section 10(13A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Sudip Rungta v. Dy. CIT held on 10 January, 2020
Section 43(1), 143(3), 263 ITAT KOLKATA on May 29, 2020 hold that the industrial promotion assistance it received was on capital account.
ITAT KOLKATA on Mar 13, 2020 quashed the reopening of assessment and allow this appeal of the assessee on the ground that the re-opening is bad in law as the Assessing Officer has not independently applied his mind to the material and recorded reasons which are vague and merely based on borrowed satisfaction.
ITAT KOLKATA on Mar 18, 2020 held that the assessment made u/s 153A/143(3) of the ‎Act is invalid in the absence of any incriminating material found during course of search ‎hence the addition made by AO in assessment completed was beyond scope. ‎
ITAT KOLKATA On 26.2.2020 held that it is settled legal proposition that the Sec. 263 revision jurisdiction is not attracted when there is absence of the corresponding assessment being both erroneous as well as causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue hence the order of PCIT to set aside the said assessment order and directing the A.O. to frame the assessment afresh is bad in law and facts.