ITAT Kolkata Judgments — February 2017

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on additions made on an estimation basis. Citing High Court judgments, it was stated that there must be conclusive evidence of concealment or inaccurate particulars, which was found lacking in this case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) ought to have condoned the marginal delay of 24 days in the interest of substantial justice, following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remitted the matter back for disposal on merit.

The Tribunal held that cess on green leaves is an allowable deduction before applying Rule 8(1) for computing composite income from tea business. This decision was based on jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court rulings.

The Tribunal held that Section 197 certificates are person-specific and not tied to specific amounts. Therefore, the assessee was justified in deducting tax at the lower rate on the entire interest paid, even if it exceeded the amount mentioned in the certificate.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. Following the CBDT instructions, the appeal was treated as withdrawn/not pressed.

The Tribunal held that as per the amended Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, a bad debt claim is allowable once it is written off in the books of account, without the need to prove irrecoverability. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s order.

The Tribunal held that service by affixure was made as the assessee was not available, and the assessee failed to provide material to show it was not in accordance with law. Therefore, the objection regarding service of notice was without merit.

The Tribunal held that the IPA received by the assessee was a capital receipt, not chargeable to tax. This was based on the scheme's objective to promote industrial development and assist in overcoming financial crises, which are capital in nature.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that suspicion alone is not enough to reject books of account. The Tribunal found that the failure to provide complete creditor details was not a material defect and that the CIT(A) was justified in admitting the additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that the issues of TDS applicability on printing charges and the closing stock difference were debatable. Therefore, these could not be rectified under Section 154, which is for mistakes apparent from the record.

The Tribunal found that the appeal was dismissed without giving the assessee an effective opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance, finding that the assessee had sufficient own funds to make investments. It also ruled that cess on green leaf is deductible before applying Rule 8D, following Supreme Court precedent.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation for most share subscribers, and the AO's reliance on retracted statements and unsubstantiated allegations regarding accommodation entries was not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the share capital.

The Tribunal held that the CIT had the power to revise the assessment order under Section 263 when the Assessing Officer's inquiry was inadequate. The Tribunal upheld the impugned orders passed by the CIT, finding them to be in line with previous judgments on similar facts.

The Tribunal held that the CIT has the power to revise assessment orders under section 263 if the Assessing Officer's inquiry was not proper or thorough. The Tribunal found that the CIT's orders were valid and not based on irrelevant considerations.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 495 and the Supreme Court's decision in Apollo Tyres support the assessee's treatment of 60% of composite income as agricultural income, which should be reduced from book profits. The CIT's proposed adjustment was beyond the scope of Section 115JB.

For AY 2008-09, the addition on account of undisclosed sales was confirmed, but credit for the income earned was to be given. For AY 2009-10, the additions were deleted by allowing the benefit of funds from the previous year. For AY 2010-11, the addition on back-to-back sales was reduced to 2% commission, and other additions were subsumed within this amount.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based merely on a change of opinion, without any new tangible material. Consequently, the reassessment order was deemed invalid and liable to be cancelled.

The Tribunal, following the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Coal India Limited, held that Employees' Contribution to PF and ESI is covered by Section 43B(b) of the Income Tax Act. Such contributions are allowable as a deduction if paid before the due date of filing the return of income for the relevant year.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not comply with notices from the CIT(Appeals), leading to an ex-parte dismissal. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing on merit.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was absent during the hearing before the CIT(A), and the First Appellate Authority did not adjudicate the assessee's rights and liabilities. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.