ITAT Kolkata Judgments — July 2016

The Tribunal held that expenses incurred prior to commencement of production should be capitalized with fixed assets and depreciation allowed thereon, following its own prior decision and Supreme Court rulings. The Tribunal also allowed a claim for expenditure pertaining to AY 2007-08, which was mistakenly claimed in AY 2008-09.

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194G was debatable. Since the Assessing Officer had taken a possible view in not making the disallowance, the revision by the Principal CIT was not permissible.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by admitting fresh evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to verify it. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition related to a loan from Aparna Banerjee should be deleted as it pertained to a different assessment year. However, the addition for the loan from Swapan Das was confirmed, as the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of funds, despite bank transactions.

The Tribunal, citing the principle that law assists the vigilant, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. This decision was based on the assessee's failure to appear and the undelivered notice.

The Tribunal, following CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, treated the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn or not pressed due to the low tax effect. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeal was below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT for filing appeals. Following CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) should be set aside and remanded to the AO. The AO is directed to verify if the recipients have included the receipts in their income and paid taxes thereon.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeal was below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT for filing appeals. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence from the deductor clarifying the nature of the payment. The Tribunal found that the deductor had wrongly classified the payment as machinery hire charges, leading to double TDS deduction.

The Tribunal held that the subsidy received under TUFS for technology upgradation is capital in nature, following previous judgments. It also held that unabsorbed depreciation and business losses of a 100% EOU unit can be set off against taxable income of other units, as decided in earlier years.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice for penalty was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Karnataka High Court's decision, the penalty order was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeal was below the revised monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Following the CBDT's instructions, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of labour charges was not justified as the tax was paid before the due date for filing the return. For motor car and telephone expenses, the disallowance was reduced. The disallowance of interest on housing loan was not sustained.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was to be treated as withdrawn or not pressed due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Consequently, the assessee's Cross Objection was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) had noted issues with the delay condonation, in the interest of justice, the case should be remanded. The assessee was out of station due to financial crises, and notices were served by affixation. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the appeal after affording an opportunity to the assessee and requiring them to produce evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect of the appeal was below the revised monetary limit set by the CBDT for filing appeals. Following CBDT instructions, the appeal was treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was based on a CBDT circular increasing the monetary limit for appeals, making the tax effect in this case below the threshold for appeal.

The Tribunal, following CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, treated the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn/not pressed due to the low tax effect. Consequently, the assessee's Cross Objection was deemed infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue was not serious in prosecuting the appeal, as evidenced by their repeated non-compliance and absence. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal, citing the principle that the law assists the vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights, treated the appeal as unadmitted. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that both the appeal and the cross-objection were liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. The Tribunal cited precedents emphasizing the need for effective pursuit of appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's failure to appear or provide an updated address indicates a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal, observing the assessee's lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal, treated the appeal as unadmitted. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, following established legal principles and ITAT rules.

The Tribunal, citing the principle that law assists the vigilant, treated the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it for non-prosecution due to the assessee's absence and failure to provide a correct address.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination after the assessee submitted additional evidence showing the municipal tax was paid in a subsequent financial year. The Tribunal found it necessary to verify this evidence for natural justice and fair play.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 50 lakhs, finding that the AO failed to substantiate the disclosure with incriminating material and that the assessee had retracted the statement at the time of filing the return. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the Rs. 9,87,919/- disallowance, finding that individual payments were below the threshold for TDS deduction.

The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner of Appeals (CIT-A) relied on documents (Fund Utilization Statement and challans) not available before the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT-A's order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that a rectification order under section 154 had been passed, which determined the assessee's total income at the originally declared amount. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue had become infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) should have provided an opportunity to rectify the defect in appeal fees instead of dismissing the appeal outright. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned as reasonable cause was shown.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had disposed of the appeal ex parte without providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) for amounts related to missing purchase vouchers, as the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus. However, the appeal was partly allowed, implying some grounds were accepted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) erred in not admitting the reconciliation statement and should have directed the Assessing Officer to verify it. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the purchase of iron materials did not constitute a composite contract requiring TDS under Section 194C. Therefore, the disallowance made by the revenue authorities under Section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to produce the necessary documents and be heard. This decision was made in the interest of justice and fair play.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under section 143(2) was issued by an officer without jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the payments made for terminal charges were not in the nature of fees for carrying out any work or for technical services, and thus Section 194C was not applicable. Consequently, the assessee was not in default for non-deduction of TDS.

The Tribunal held that advance tax liability arises only when it is legally due. Since the liability to pay tax on the capital gains beyond Rs. 50 lakhs crystallized only after the notification dated 22.12.2006, the assessee could not be held liable for advance tax payment in earlier installments.

The Tribunal held that the green leaf cess is eligible for deduction in computing the composite income from the tea business, in line with the jurisdictional High Court's decision. The pendency of an SLP before the Supreme Court does not affect this decision as no stay has been granted.

The Tribunal held that the payment was a reimbursement of actual manufacturing costs and did not contain any profit element. Following its own prior decisions on identical issues for the assessee, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that Section 194C(2) was not applicable as there was no contract, either written or verbal, between the assessee and the individual dumper owners for these temporary arrangements. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that no tax was deductible at source as the rent paid to Calcutta Port Trust was not chargeable to tax. Therefore, the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated illegally because the reasons recorded by the AO did not allege escapement of income due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. Since the reassessment was initiated beyond four years and the conditions of the proviso to Section 147 were not met, the reassessment order was annulled.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim regarding investment in a residential flat within his own project within the stipulated period was not properly appreciated by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of this specific claim.

The Tribunal held that advance tax liability arises only when it is legally due. Since the liability to pay tax on the capital gains beyond Rs. 50 lakhs crystallized only after the notification dated 22.12.2006, the assessee could not be held liable for advance tax payment in earlier installments.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under section 143(2) was issued by an officer without jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. It was held that Section 172 of the Income Tax Act applies to non-resident shipping companies, overriding other provisions like Section 195, and payments made to agents of such companies are also covered by Section 172.

The Tribunal, citing the principle that law aids the vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights, decided to treat the appeal as unadmitted. This decision was based on precedents where appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 was defective as it did not specify the grounds for penalty. Consequently, the penalty orders were deemed invalid and cancelled.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) for amounts related to missing purchase vouchers, as the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus. However, the appeal was partly allowed, implying some grounds were accepted.