SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal partly allowed ITA No. 3173/KOL/2025 by estimating the net profit at 4% of the turnover. The Tribunal allowed ITA No. 3174/KOL/2025 and ITA No. 3175/KOL/2025, cancelling the penalties imposed under Section 271B and Section 271(1)(b) respectively, citing reasonable cause for non-compliance and errors in the penalty proceedings.

SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for ITA No. 3173/KOL/2025, adjusting the profit estimation to 4% instead of 5% or 20%. For ITA No. 3174/KOL/2025, the penalty under Section 271B was cancelled due to a reasonable cause for delayed audit report filing and erroneous turnover calculation by the AO. For ITA No. 3175/KOL/2025, the penalty for non-compliance was cancelled, finding reasonable cause in the assessee's circumstances and lack of justification for penal consequences.

SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment, stating that issuance of notice under Section 148 within the limitation period is sufficient, irrespective of the service date. However, the Ld. CIT(A)'s order sustaining the addition under Section 68 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh assessment. The assessee is directed to provide full details of investments, sales, and purchasers to justify the genuineness and creditworthiness of transactions, with failure leading to adverse inference.

the Tribunal raising the\nfollowing grounds of appeal for AY 2008-09 and more or less similar\ngrounds of appeal have been raised in the appeals for other A.Ys. as\nwell:\n\n“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the National Faceless\nAppeal Centre, Delhi [the Ld. CIT(A)] erred in rejecting the claim of refund\nof excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by the Appellant\namounting to Rs.94,81,687.\n\n2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

The Tribunal held that DDT is a charge on the profits of the company and not a tax on the shareholder, thus the DTAA is not triggered in this scenario. Furthermore, the assessee failed to file a return of income as required by section 239(1) of the Act for claiming the refund.

SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that DDT is a charge on the profits of the company distributed as dividend and not a tax on the shareholder, thus the DTAA is not triggered. Furthermore, the assessee failed to file a return of income as required under Section 239(1) of the Income Tax Act for claiming the refund.

SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that DDT is a charge on the profits of the company distributed as dividend, not a tax on the shareholder's income, and therefore, the DTAA is not triggered in this scenario. Furthermore, the assessee had not filed a return of income as required by Section 239 of the Act for claiming the refund.

SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that DDT is a charge on distributed profits and not income of the assessee, therefore, the DTAA is not triggered. Furthermore, as the assessee did not file a return of income as required by Section 239(1) of the Income Tax Act for claiming the refund, the claim is not maintainable.

the Tribunal raising the\nfollowing grounds of appeal for AY 2008-09 and more or less similar\ngrounds of appeal have been raised in the appeals for other A.Ys. as\nwell:\nITA No(s). 1776 to 1783/KOL/2024\nAssessment Year(s) 2008-09 to 2015-16\nPhilips India Limited.\n1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the National Faceless\nAppeal Centre, Delhi [the Ld. CIT(A)] erred in rejecting the claim of refund\nof excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by the Appellant\namountin

The Tribunal held that DDT is not a tax on the income of the assessee but a charge levied on distributed profits. It further held that the claim for refund was not maintainable as the assessee had not filed a return of income as required by Section 239(1) of the Act for claiming the refund.

the Tribunal raising the\nfollowing grounds of appeal for AY 2008-09 and more or less similar\ngrounds of appeal have been raised in the appeals for other A.Ys. as\nwell:\nPage | 2\nITA No(s). 1776 to 1783/KOL/2024\nAssessment Year(s) 2008-09 to 2015-16\nPhilips India Limited.\n“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the National Faceless\nAppeal Centre, Delhi [the Ld. CIT(A)] erred in rejecting the claim of refund\nof excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by the Appellan

SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that DDT is a charge levied on distributed profits of a company, not a tax on the income of the assessee, and therefore, the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) is not applicable. Furthermore, the assessee had not filed a return of income to claim the refund as required by Section 239 of the Income Tax Act.

the Tribunal raising the\nfollowing grounds of appeal for AY 2008-09 and more or less similar\ngrounds of appeal have been raised in the appeals for other A.Ys. as\nwell:\nITA No(s). 1776 to 1783/KOL/2024\nAssessment Year(s) 2008-09 to 2015-16\nPhilips India Limited.\n“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the National Faceless\nAppeal Centre, Delhi [the Ld. CIT(A)] erred in rejecting the claim of refund\nof excess Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by the Appellant\namounti

The ITAT dismissed the appeals, ruling that DDT is a tax on the company's distributed profits, not triggering DTAA. Furthermore, the claim for refund was not maintainable as the assessee failed to file a return of income as required by Section 239(1) of the Act.

SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal, following its own earlier decision in a similar case for AY 2018-19, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to examine whether the payments were made within the due dates as per the Provident Fund Act/ESI Act and allow the deduction accordingly. Any remaining disallowances are to be confirmed.

SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) had rejected the application due to the non-furnishing of details. In the interest of justice and fair play, the assessee should be granted another opportunity to file proper submissions.

SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

The Tribunal held that the income from the sale of green tea leaves, amounting to Rs. 2,74,52,602/-, is purely agricultural income and not part of the profit or loss from the business of growing and manufacturing tea. Therefore, it cannot be subjected to the provisions of the Income Tax Act under Rule 8. The Tribunal cited a Supreme Court decision in support of its view, stating that income from the sale of green tea leaves is agricultural in nature and not taxable under the Income Tax Act.