ITAT Kolkata Judgments — June 2016

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a reasonable opportunity of being heard due to the delay. Citing Supreme Court and Tribunal precedents, it was decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and direct a de novo order on merits.

The Tribunal held that stamp duty and registration charges for leasehold properties, even for long tenures, are revenue expenditure, as they do not result in acquisition of capital assets or enduring benefit. Legal expenses related to title scrutiny for these leases were also allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeals due to repeated non-appearance. Therefore, the appeals were liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the primary object of Section 40A(3) is to curb tax evasion and encourage banking habits. Since the transactions were genuine, the payee was identified, and payments were directly deposited into their bank account, the disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal found that the revenue failed to properly frame its grounds of appeal for each deleted addition. For the coordination charges, the CIT(A)'s deletion was upheld. For commission paid, the issue was set aside to the AO for fresh consideration.