ITAT Kolkata Judgments — September 2017

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the TAR with the jurisdictional ITO was due to the assessee's mistake and ignorance regarding jurisdiction, not a willful or deliberate act. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271B was not justified.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had established business expediency for making cash payments. The genuineness of the transactions was not doubted, and the payments were made due to business compulsion to ensure timely purchase of goods.

The CIT-A deleted the addition, holding that the non-deduction of tax was a technical default due to Form 15-I submissions, and relied on various judicial precedents. The Tribunal upheld the CIT-A's order, finding the case laws relevant and the AO's previous year's acceptance of similar facts persuasive.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition on account of cess on green leaf, following jurisdictional ITAT precedents. The Tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the sale of shade trees, treating the proceeds as capital agricultural receipts.

The Tribunal held that the provisions of the DTAA, being beneficial to the assessee, would override Section 206AA of the Income Tax Act, even if the non-resident failed to provide a PAN. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at the higher rate prescribed by Section 206AA.

The Tribunal held that the delay in obtaining and filing the tax audit report was beyond the assessee's control, as it was dependent on the Cooperative Department's appointment of auditors. Therefore, the penalty imposed was not justified.

The Tribunal held that issuing a notice under Section 148 to a non-existent entity, after amalgamation, is a jurisdictional defect. Consequently, any reassessment order passed based on such invalid notice is illegal and without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the issue of interest expenditure deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) or 57(iii) on merit, but was influenced by a decision concerning Section 14A. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the profit from the sale of equipment is not taxable in India, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the taxability of equipment sales.

The Tribunal held that the revisionary order passed under Section 263 was bad in law. It found that the cash payments made to the territorial licensed agent were protected by the exemption under Rule 6DD(b) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, similar to payments made directly to the government.

The Tribunal held that temporary over-drawings leading to a debit balance in the capital account and consequent inadmissibility of interest expenses for a period does not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The disclosure made by the assessee was not considered incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the profit from the sale of equipment is not taxable in India, following previous decisions in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the taxability of equipment sales.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not being prosecuted by the assessee, indicating a lack of interest. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.