ITAT upholds CIT(A)'s decisions on cess, NABARD deductions, and depreciation.

The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal on all grounds, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions regarding the deletion of cess on green leaf expenditure, the partial allowance of deductions for NABARD withdrawals, and the allowance of depreciation on plant and machinery. The judgments were based on established legal precedents and interpretations of relevant sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made on account of cess on green leaf expenditure.
2. Allowability of deduction for withdrawal from NABARD account for office equipment.
3. Allowability of depreciation on plant and machinery purchased from NABARD account withdrawal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Deletion of Addition Made on Account of Cess on Green Leaf Expenditure:
The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 25,63,853/- made by the AO for cess on green leaf expenditure claimed by the assessee. The AO disallowed this expense, citing that an SLP was pending before the Supreme Court against the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. A.F.T Industries Ltd. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, relying on ITAT Kolkata's decisions in similar cases, stating that the pending SLP did not affect the High Court's standing decision. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Apeejay Tea & Co. Ltd., which supported the deduction of such cess expenses. Thus, the appeal on this ground by the Revenue was dismissed.

2. Allowability of Deduction for Withdrawal from NABARD Account for Office Equipment:
The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s decision to allow a deduction of Rs. 1,21,206/- for withdrawal from the NABARD account, used for purchasing office equipment. The AO had disallowed this amount, arguing it was not in accordance with Section 33AB(4) of the Act. The CIT(A) partially upheld the assessee's claim, allowing all items except for a refrigerator, which did not qualify under the scheme. The ITAT supported the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the withdrawal was in line with the Tea Development Account Scheme, 1990, and Section 33AB(4) of the Act. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed.

3. Allowability of Depreciation on Plant and Machinery Purchased from NABARD Account Withdrawal:
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation of Rs. 9,48,088/- on plant and machinery purchased from the NABARD account. The AO had disallowed this depreciation, citing Section 33AB(6) of the Act, which prohibits deductions for expenditures from such withdrawals. The CIT(A) overturned this, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Garden Silk Weaving Factory vs. CIT, which clarified that depreciation is a notional allowance, not an actual expenditure. The ITAT agreed, confirming that depreciation does not fall under the disallowed expenditures per Section 33AB(6). Thus, the Revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed.

Conclusion:
The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal on all grounds, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions regarding the deletion of cess on green leaf expenditure, the partial allowance of deductions for NABARD withdrawals, and the allowance of depreciation on plant and machinery. The judgments were based on established legal precedents and interpretations of relevant sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

---