Home Case Index All Cases Income TaxIncome Tax Section Wise 2014 2014 2014 (2) Income Tax - 2014 (2) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Income Tax - Case Laws

Showing 241 to 260 of 654 Records

• 2014 (2) TMI 949
  

  Legality of Notice u/s 147/148 of the Act – Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act – Reopening of assessment - Held that:- The assessee was asked details about the same "fictitious entities" in respect of which amounts were reflected in the returns and documents disclosed at the time of the assessment - there was no "tangible" material apart from what existed at the finalization of the original assessment, undermining the exercise of reassessment notice - The information received from the bank which forms the information on which the Assessing Officer forms his belief under Section 147, does not and cannot relate to the year 1990-91 - The decision in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal And Another Versus Income-Tax Officer And Another [1993 (7) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court] relied upon - there is no material or information on record that relates to income in 1990-91 that may justify the reopening of assessment for the year 1990-91 – there is no reason to believe that income has escaped assessment for the year 1990-91 – thus, the reassessment notice served to the assessee in respect of the year 1990-91 by the Revenue is liable to be quashed.

  Claim of depreciation of re-valued assets – Held that:- The decision in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT [2002 (5) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court] followed - the Assessing Officer cannot open the accounts which have been drawn in accordance with the Companies Act, 1956, certified by the chartered accountant, accepted by the general body of the company, and placed before the Registrar to which he has not taken any objection – Thus, the notice under Section 147/148 and all further proceedings set aside - Decided in favour of Assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 948
  

  Applicability of section 240 - Refund on appeal – Block assessment - Whether the HC was correct in holding that Section 240 of the Act is not applicable to Chapter XIV B of the Act and the taxes paid pursuant to the return filed in the block assessment is liable to be refunded to the block assessment proceedings, especially in view of Section 158BH of the Act – Held that:- The decision in Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Shelly Products And Another [2003 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court] followed - the assessee was only entitled to the refund of tax paid in excess of the tax chargeable on the total income returned by the assessee. - Decided in favour of revenue.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 947
  

  Estimation of income in liquor business – Estimation of income on cost of goods sold @5% - Held that:- The assessee had already admitted sales and treated the balance sum as undisclosed sales and after reducing the unaccounted investment from it, brought to tax the difference - The decision in Income tax Officer-Ward-2, Hyderabad Versus Amaravathi Wine Shop, Hyderabad [2012 (8) TMI 706 - ITAT, HYDERABAD] followed - CIT(A) directed AO to estimate net profit at 5% of the purchases or stock put to sale during the year, subject to net profit being not less than returned profit - there is no reason to interfere in the findings of CIT(A) as he followed Coordinate Bench decision – Decided against Revenue.

  Additions made on rejecting books of account - Taxability u/s 69 and 69C of the Act – Examination of payments on behalf of license fee – Held that:- The issue of payment of license fee and sources require fresh examination by A.O -assessee is in the same business of running wine shop - the statements did not indicate the business from 1.4.2008 to June, 2008 - The opening stock as on 31.03.2008 was shown as NIL - the purchases from 1.4.2008 to 30.04.2008 and corresponding sales are required to be examined on the basis of books/bank statements – also, outstanding license fee (rather prepaid fee) of earlier year, if assessee was in business as contended, reconciliation with payments this year and claims in next year also require verification – thus, the matter remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided partly in favour of Assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 946
  

  Eligibility for deduction u/s. 80IA - Transfer of ongoing business - Treatment of income derived – Held that:- M/s. Meenakshi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., was duly approved by the Ministry of Commerce, Govt. of India as an industrial park in terms of Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 notified by the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and that assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - M/s. Meenakshi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., has transferred the operation and maintenance of industrial park – the transfer was duly noted by the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion and intimated to both transferor and transferee vide Ministry's letters dated 9th August, 2006 and 3rd August, 2007 – thus, the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act for the unexpired period during which the transferor enterprise would have been entitled for deduction if the transfer had not taken place – but, M/s. Meenakshi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., cannot claim deduction u/s. 80IA(4) on the same income - There cannot be overlapping claim by each other.

  The AO straightaway disallowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) and not gone into the quantification of deduction, such as whether computation is proper or not – thus, the matter remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication of computation aspect of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act – Decided partly in favour of Revenue.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 945
  

  Allowability of Expenditure – Repairs and maintenance – Held that:- The assessee has incurred the expenditures for not creating any new asset and /or carried out total new premises - The expenditures has been incurred to, only for renovation and to carry out the repairs and replacement of existing door frames, electricity wiring etc- the expenditure has been incurred to put new wooden panel, plastering walls, ceiling and to replace electrical wire - the expenditures cannot be said to be an for renovation of the building -out of the total expenditure of Rs.17,24,609/- the expenditure of Rs. 15,96,849/- is the revenue in nature, the expenditure incurred towards current repairs for renovation and the repairs of the premises in connection with the business of the assessee and the same is to be allowed as revenue expenditure – Decided against Revenue.

  Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act – Held that:- The AO before invoking the provisions of Rule 8D read with section 14A sub-section (2)(iii) has to give a finding that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee with regard to such expenditure - the assessee has not on its own made any disallowance on account of investment made and earning of the dividend income - the AO in the assessment order has referred the provision of section 14A (2) of the Act as well as CBDT notification dated 24.3.2008 for applying Rule 8D and to make disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules – there is no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) and accordingly the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act sustained – Decided against Assessee.

  Rebate u/s 88E of the Act – Held that:- Assessee submitted that nowhere it has been mentioned that how the expenses are incurred under indirect expenses and has been considered for making the adjustment while making rebate u/s 88E of the Act – revenue could not controvert the contention of the assessee – as both the parties agreed that the matter be restored to AO to recalculate the rebate to be allowed to the assessee u/s 88E of the Act – thus, the matter remitted back to the AO for recalculation – Decided in favour of Assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 944
  

  Nature of Income – Whether the income falls under any of the heads of income as described u/s 14 of the I.T. Act – Held that:- The income is nothing but unaccounted money received by the assessee from customers on account of sale of flats of its housing project, 'The Crest' at Pimple Saudagar, Pune - the source of the additional income is the sale of flats in the housing project, 'The Crest’ – thus, once the source of income is established the assessability has to follow - The nature of income has to be treated as 'business income' , the same was not accounted for in the account books.

  Deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act – Search conducted u/s 132(1) of the Act – Held that:- Having regard to the expression "all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section" in Explanation (i) of section 153A of the Act, it clearly implies that in assessing or reassessing the 'total income' for the assessment years specified in section 153A(1)(b) of the Act, the import of section 80A(1) of the Act comes into play, and there shall be allowed the deductions specified in Chapter VIA of the Act, of course subject to fulfillment of the respective conditions - the phraseology of section 153A r.w. Explanation (i) does not support the premise arrived at by the CIT(A) – thus, the assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act even with regard to the enhanced income was well within the scope and ambit of an assessment u/s 153A(1)(b) of the Act and the Assessing Officer was obligated to consider the same as per law.

  Factually, there is no material to negate the assertion of the assessee, which are borne out of the material on record, that the additional income in question has been received in the course of carrying on its business activity of developing the housing project, 'The Crest' at Pimple Saudagar, Pune, which is eligible for section 80IB(10) benefits – thus, Relying CIT vs. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd. [2012 (8) TMI 159 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the claim of the assessee is justified – thus, assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act in relation to additional income offered in a statement u/s 132(4) of the Act in the course of search and subsequently declared in the return filed in response to notice u/s 153A(1)(a) of the Act – Decided in favour of Assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 943
  

  Setting off of speculation loss – Loss of earlier years to be set off against the profit of the same business – Held that:- CIT(A) was of the view that there has not been any change in the nature of the transactions during the year under consideration as compared to the preceding year - The nature of transactions in shares and securitìes as carried out by the appellant company is admittedly speculative –Relying upon CIT v. Soorajmall Baijnath Agencies (P) Ltd.[ 2004 (7) TMI 25 - CALCUTTA High Court ] - Section 73(2) prescribes that loss of the speculation business of a particular year can be carried forward to the subsequent previous year and be set off or be adjusted against the income of any speculation business of the said previous year – The loss of AY 2006-07 was allowed to be carried forward to be set off of subsequent years' speculation business profit against this speculation loss - In AY 2007-08, there is no objection on the part of the revenue – the revenue has treated this loss in AY 2006-07 as speculation loss arising out of the same business - the assessee is carrying on share trading activity in share business which is a speculation business in term of explanation to Section 73 of the Act – thus, there was no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue.

  Rebate on account STT – Calculation of MAT u/s 115JB of the Act – Allowability of Rebate u/s 88E of the Act – Held that:- The decision in CIT Vs. M/s. Winro Commercial India Ltd [2013 (10) TMI 1223 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and CIT Vs. M/s. Todi Securities (P) Ltd. [2013 (10) TMI 1223 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] followed - when the total income is assessed and the tax chargeable is computed, it is from that tax which is chargeable, the tax paid under Section 88E is given deduction, by way of rebate, under section 87 of the Act - This is the legislative intent - This is a promise to give deduction of the tax already paid - This is the mode in which tax already paid is handed back at the time of final computation – the order of the CIT(A) upheld – Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 942
  

  Substitution of addition on account of suppression of sales – Estimation of wastage not considered – Held that:- The AO is not justified in rejecting the books of account by invoking Provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act – the additions made by the AO are liable to be deleted - The objection of the DR that the CIT(A) has not relied upon the CGCRI Report, Calcutta , the AR has pointed out that the in the same report it has been mentioned that the said organization is not involved production practice and they are not sure to what extent their opinion will be useful for the purpose of the assessee – thus, the report of CGCRI, Calcutta alone cannot be the basis for rejection of books of account and making an estimation of wastage - CIT(A) was not justified in ignoring other material which was placed before him – thus the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the applicability of Section 145(3) of the Act – Decided against Revenue.

  Application of Section 145(3) of the Act – Held that:- The CIT (A) has applied the provision of section 145(3) only on the technical ground which cannot be the defect in the eyes of law - CIT (A) has not point out specific defects in the books of accounts and without pointed out any defects in the books of accounts the provision of 145(3) cannot be applied – Relying upon Madnani Construction Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2006 (12) TMI 79 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] - When the AO has neither expressed his dissatisfaction about the correctness or completeness of the accounts nor any error is pointed out in P&L a/c and Audited report, the powers of best judgment cannot be invoked - Without pinpointing any defect much less any material defect in the books of account of the assessee regularly maintained, provision of Section 145(3) of the Act cannot be invoked - The provision of Section 145(3) of the Act has been wrongly invoked – thus, any addition made as a consequence of invoking of Section 145(3) has to go – Decided in favour of Assessee.

  No specific defect much less any material defect has been pointed out by the AO in the books of account of the assessee duly maintained during the course of this regular business - The other issues regarding adoption of a particular gross profit rate is not tenable in the eyes of law – thus, no trading addition can be made in the hands of the company on account of trading activities – thus, the entire addition made by the AO deleted – Decided in favour of Assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 941
  

  Confirmation of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act – Disallowance of Depreciation on leased assets – Held that:- The decision in IndusInd Bank Limited Versus Addl. CIT, Range 2(3), Mumbai [2014 (2) TMI 594 - ITAT MUMBAI] followed - It is a legal claim made by the assessee and even the same claim was made in the earlier years - The CIT(A) gave a finding that the assessee neither concealed its income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income and the claim is continuous one – thus, the assessee is entitled for the claim of depreciation - this is neither the case of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income – thus, the penalty is not exigible – the order of the CIT(A) reversed – Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 940
  

  Allowability of Depreciation on ship – Whether the ship was put to use for the purpose of business – Held that:- The Ship M.V. Maanav Star was purchased and was delivered to the new owner on 24th August, 2004 and the vessel departed from ‘Rue Wharf’ to ‘Rye Anchorage’ and the vessel was grounded on port of U.K. on 11.09.2004 - The vessel was used from 24th October 2004 till 30th March, 2005 and assessee has received the freight and hire charges - The assessee has earned the income after returning from Moroni - The vessel came to Mumbai and was loaded cargo at Mumabi and sailed to port Mina Rashid, Dubai - Thereafter, vessel had gone to various places thus, the vessel has earned the total freight charges which is reflected in the profit and loss account – thus, the assessee has used this vessel for carried out the business – the CIT(A) is justified in his action – Decided against Revenue.

  Deletion made on account of lease rent of luxury cruiser – Accrual of rent and System of accounting – Held that:- The assessee has accounted the rent only at 50% of the total lease rent – the assessee has received the lease rent from March-April - The assessee has received lease rent from M/s. Advani Hotels & Resorts (I) Ltd. for period of 16th March 2005 to 15th April 2005 - The assessee has received the amount but as the assessee was following Mercantile System and the Assessment Year ending on March- Thus, assessee has shown the lease rent for A.Y. 2006-07 and remaining rent was shown in the subsequent year - CIT(A) verifying this accounts has deleted the addition – there is no need to interfere in the findings of the CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 939
  

  Addition made u/s 69 of the Act – Unexplained investment – Held that:- On the date of survey the stock found from the two business places i.e., at Nachinda Bazar and from Rasulpur Service Station and the item-wise details of stock found from the business premises during the course of survey - there is no stock found of HSD and lubricants at Nachinda Bazar and stock found in the business premises, at best can be added - The differences of closing stock as on 31st March, 2006 and stock found during the course of survey on 17-11-2005, the difference can be added to the returned income of the assessee - The value of petrol at Rasulpur Service Station i.e, closing stock and that of HSD (diesel) - the assessee has stock available as against stock found during the course of survey - the difference being at best can be treated as unexplained stock, which can be added to the returned income of the assessee - thus, the Assessing Officer is directed to restrict the addition at Rs.1,27,035 only – Decided partly in favour of Assessee.

  Difference on the stock as on date of survey and the statement submitted – Opportunity to adduce evidences – Held that:- The assessee stated that on the two issues the Assessing Officer made addition and CIT(A) also confirmed the action of AO and no proper opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessee and assessee also fails to explain the source of this deposit - the assessee requested that fresh opportunity of being heard to be provided – revenue has not objected to set aside the two issues to the file of AO – thus, the matter remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided partly in favour of Assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 938
  

  Addition u/s 68 of the Act set aside – Validity of Admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Rules – Held that:- The assessee has failed to submit the relevant documents before the AO – though, he has submitted some details before the CIT(A) - As regards the contention of the assessee that the amount was received as share application money, it is a matter of factual verification - If the assessee has only received Rs. 12,00,000/- share application money during financial year 2006-07, AO can consider only the said amount u/s. 68 of the IT Act for A.Y. 2007-08 - Rest amount cannot be considered in the current year as share application money receipt under section 68 of the I.T. Act – thus, the matter remitted back to AO for fresh adjudication.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 937
  

  Validity of additions of Completed Assessement – Sustainability of Assessment u/s 153A r/w 143(3) of the Act – Held that:- The decision in Shri Govind Agarwal vs. ACIT [2014 (2) TMI 810 - ITAT MUMBAI] and Jai Steel (India) vs. ACIT [2013 (6) TMI 161 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] followed - The first proviso to section 153A empowers the AO to issue notice u/s 153A of the Act in respect of the AYs prior to the assessment year in which the search took place - The relevance of the existence of incriminating material is not provided in the provisions - As per the revenue there should not be any difference qua the completed assessments and the abated assessments for all six AYs in so far as the powers of the AO is concerned and he is empowered to issue notice u/s 153A and make additions either based in the incriminating material or otherwise.

  The case deals with the case of disturbing the 'completed assessment' - Earlier the assessment was completed u/s 143(1) of the Act - In case of the concluded assessments, the additions are made only based on the incriminating material discovered during the search action – the AO made additions by reassessing u/s 153A on the completed assessment u/s 143(1) of the Act – thus, the issue of notice u/s 153A of the Act is valid - In the absence of incriminating material, the role of the AO is only to reiterate the returned income filed in response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act – The arguments relating to the validity of the notice u/s 153 are disapproved - the validity of the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act confirmed – the additions made by the AO in the absence of any incriminating material are not sustainable – Decided in favour of Assessee.

  Addition u/s 68 of the Act - Unexplained gifts received – Held that:- The decision in M/s. Govind Agarwal (HUF) vs. DCIT [2014 (1) TMI 1394 - ITAT MUMBAI] followed - there is no reference to any seized material or any incriminating documents so as to suggest that addition made in the assessment order are based on any incriminating material found at the time of search - Once that is so and also that the assessment for the assessment year has attained finality before the date of search, then no addition can be made under section 153A - the disallowance made u/s 68 is uncalled for as the same is beyond the scope of section 153A / 153C of the Act - No incriminating material in support of the additions made u/s 68 of the Act was brought to notice by the Revenue – thus, the addition made u/s 68 of the Act is set aside – Decided in favour of Assessee.

  Applicability of the provisions of section 14A of the Act – Held that:- Revenue contended that the AO erroneously applied the Rule-8D for the assessment year in question which actually applicable from the assessment year 2008-2009 - Considering the factual matrix of the case as well as the prayer of the Counsel for remanding –the matter remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of Revenue.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 936
  

  Deduction u/s 10A or 10B - Held that:- From the order passed by the AO and learned CIT(A), it is observed that the arguments stated in the chart were not taken by the assessee before them - The issue has been restored for fresh adjudication.

  Pre-commencement expenses - Held that:- No material was brought to the attention of CIT(A) to show that whether Dehradun Unit is proposed to manufacture same item (as being manufactured in existing other units) or different product, business as integrated one has different sources of income - Assessee has not shown in any manner that the Dehradun Unit is being set up to expand production of an item already manufactured elsewhere - The CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO to treat the impugned expenses/ loss pertaining to pre-commencement period of new business facility - Decided against assessee.

  Set off of brought forward business loss - Held that:- Deduction u/s 10A has to be given effect to at the stage of computing the profits and gains of business and the computation should be anterior to the application of provisions of section 72 of the Act - Profits on one unit cannot be set off from the loss of another firm in the process of computation of deduction under section 10A of the Act - The issue has been restored for fresh adjudication in the light of aforementioned judgement.

  Deduction u/s 10B - Held that:- a deduction of such profits and gains as are derived by 100% Export Oriented undertaking from the export of articles or things or computer software for a period of 10 consecutive assessment years relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking begins manufacture or products articles or things or computer software, as the case may be, shall be allowed from the total income of the assessee - The approval relates to the assessment year relevant to previous year in which undertaking begins manufacture or products articles or things - Decided against Revenue.

  Product registration charges - Held that:- The expenditure incurred by the assessee on registration of its products was in the Revenue nature - The products once registered are not sold only in that particular year but the sale can be made over a span of time until the renewal of registration is required - The benefit form the said registration of the product is not restricted to the relevant assessment year at the same time the expense is of revenue nature - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 935
  

  Disallowance out of interest expenditure - Held that:- Some business exigency was involved for the interest expenditure claimed - As observed by the A.O. certain manipulation by the assessee to reduce its taxable income cannot be ruled out - The disallowance at the rate of 25% made by the A.O. was excessive - To justify, the disallowance made out of interest expenditure has been restricted to the extent of 10% of the total interest expenditure claimed by the assessee - Partly allowed in favour of assessee.

  Electricity expenses of the offices - Held that:- The burden is on the assessee to establish that the expenses claimed were wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business - The facts of the case require verification - The issue has been restored for fresh adjudication.

  Disallownace u/s 43B - Held that:- The service tax in question was payable by the assessee for the financial year 2007-08 and as per the relevant Service Tax Rules, the same was payable after recovery from the receiver of the service - He submitted that such recovery was made by the assessee during the year under consideration and the service tax payable for financial year 2007-08 was duly paid on such recovery within the stipulated period - No such verification has been made either by the A.O. or by the ld. CIT(A), the matter should be restored to the file of the A.O. for such verification – The issue has been restored for fresh adjudication.

  Expenditure incurred for protecting the ownership of hoardings – Held that:- The displaying of hoardings being the business of the assessee, the expenditure incurred for right to display is thus business right of the assessee – If the expenditure incurred for protection of business rights, is revenue in nature – If the expenditure is incurred for acquisition of right to display will fall in the definition of capital expenditure – Relying upon the decision in the case of Dalmia Jain & Co. [1971 (7) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court] - In deciding whether a particular expenditure is capital or revenue in nature, what the courts have to see is whether the expenditure in question was incurred to create any new asset or was incurred for maintaining the business of the company - If it is the former it is the capital expenditure; if it is the latter, it is the revenue expenditure - Distinction is to be made as to whether the expenditure is for creating, curing or completing the assessee’s title to capital or for protecting the business – The issue has been restored to the file of A.O. to make a distinction as to which of the expenditure was incurred by the assessee for protection of its right to display over a prominent or particular site and which of the expenses were incurred for acquisition of right to display on such sites.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 934
  

  Disallowance of loss - Held that:- The assessee failed to submit details and evidences of expenses incurred by it - Also the Auditor put a remark that during excise search accounting and stock records were seized and audit was done in the absence of these records and documents - No verification was made even by the auditor, therefore appellant cannot claim that accounts are audited - Loss has been claimed but in support of such claim, no evidence is furnished - The assessee has not taken any step to take the certified copies from the Central Excise Department of the records seized - No panchnama of the records seized is placed on record, therefore in the absence of the material evidence, the authorities below were justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee - Decided against assessee.

  Unaccounted production and unrecorded sale - Held that:- Relying upon the decision in Motorol Technologies Ltd.v s. ITO [2014 (2) TMI 253 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] - The assessee failed to furnish the sales bill along with other basic records for verification as called by the AO - The AO has made additions solely on the basis of the penalty order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara-II penalty order F.No.V.Ch.27(15)9/0A/AC/Prev./03 dated 29/10/2004 - Director of the assessee-company has agreed that goods have been removed from the premises without making entries in Central Excise Records and without paying the duty involved. No material is placed on record by the Revenue that any independent enquiry was made by the AO to find out whether such details of sales were not recorded in the regular books of account by summoning the record from the central excise authorities - The decision in aforesaid case followed to make addition @ 12.5% margin on unaccouted sale - Partly allowed in favour of assessee.

  Unexplained unsecured loan - Held that:- The appellant submitted accounts confirmations from Parikh Enterprise, Alpana Gandhi, Motorol Enterprise, Nirmala S.Gandhi, Motorol Speciality Oils Ltd, Manhatton Fingrowth Ltd. and Flexi Pack India Ltd - Confirmation received from all these seven parties bear the complete address and PAN - Except the case of Motorol Enterprise, the money was received by cheque - Relying upon the decision in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Orissa Versus Orissa Corporation Pvt. Limited [1986 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court] - By furnishing confirmation with Pan, primary onus is discharged by the appellant - Onus thereafter shifts to the Assessing Officer to make further investigation and prove the credit non-genuine - Since primary onus is discharged by the appellant by submitting confirmation with PAN, credit cannot be treated as unexplained on non-submission of additional information – Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 933
  

  Whether the amount paid for acquisition of Process Design Documentation is fee for technical services - assessee had pleaded that the impugned portion of the consideration is for the supply of drawings, designs and detailed engineering services for the erection of the "plant" for the manufacture of the licensed products and, therefore, the same constitutes a 'plant' and in terms thereof no income accrues in India to the foreign collaborator. - Held that:- The learned Departmental Representative has not referred to any incriminating material or evidence to demonstrate that the bifurcation made out in the supplementary agreements was with any mala fide intentions - Assessee is not liable to make such payment on such deduction of tax on said amount of remittance - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 932
  

  Amortization of premium paid on Government Securities - revenue or capital expenditure – Held that:- As per RBI guidelines dated 16th October, 2000, the investment portfolio of the banks is required to be classified under three categories viz. Held to Maturity (HTM), Held for Trading (HFT) and Available for Sale (AFS). Investments classified under HTM category need not be marked to market and are carried at acquisition cost unless these are more than the face value, in which case the premium should be amortised over the period remaining to maturity. In the case of HFT and AFS securities forming stock in trade of the bank, the depreciation/ appreciation is to be aggregated scrip wise and only net depreciation, if any, is required to be provided for in the accounts.

  Decisions in DCIT Vs. Kallappanna Awade Ichalkaranji Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. [2014 (1) TMI 754 - ITAT PUNE] and ACIT vs. The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. [2010 (12) TMI 894 - ITAT, Mumbai] followed.- In case of banks, the premium paid in excess of face value of investments classified under HTM category which has been amortised over the period till maturity is allowable as revenue expenditure since the claim is as per RBI Guidelines and CBDT also has directed to allow such premium - Nothing contrary was brought to our notice against the order of the Tribunal, therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and Tribunal deleting the disallowance – Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 931
  

  Validity of reassessment proceedings – DTAA between India and Thailand - Held that:- There is no new material or tangible evidence in the hands of the Revenue - It was only based on a change of opinion that reopening was resorted to - That a reopening cannot be done based on a change of opinion – Relying upon CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Revenue has no case that assessee had failed to disclose truly and fully any particulars necessary for its assessment - proviso to Section 147 is squarely applicable - Reopening done based on change of opinion after four years from the end of the assessment year could not be held as valid - The reopening and resultant reassessment are quashed – Decided in favour of Assessee.

  Revision u/s 263 - Allowance of rural bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act - Held that:- The decision in Indian Overseas Bank v. Dy. CIT [2014 (2) TMI 930 - ITAT CHENNAI ] followed - There is always a possibility that an asset, which is fully recoverable, may not be so at future date - possibility of happening of such a contingency cannot be a sufficient reason to consider a provision made on standard assets also as a provision for bad and doubtful debts - claim of the assessee that provision for standard assets also has to be considered for applying the condition set out under Section 36(1)(viia) is not in accordance with law - a cryptic order of the Assessing Officer by itself may not show that there was no thought given by him on a claim of the assessee - here there was no enquiry made during the course of assessment proceedings - "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" is a term of wide import and not confined to loss of tax - An order without application of mind is definitely prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - We are in agreement with ld. CIT that the order of Assessing Officer was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interests of Revenue – Decided against Assessee.

  Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w Rule 8D of the Rules – Held that:- The decision in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] followed - Rule 8D could not be applied for assessment year - even after the application of Rule 8D, disallowance under Section 14A could be made – the matter remitted back to the AO for Re-adjudication – Decided in favour of Assessee.

  Depreciation on UPS claimed – Held that:- The decision in Indian Overseas Bank v. Dy. CIT [2014 (2) TMI 930 - ITAT CHENNAI ] followed - depreciation @ 60% granted by treating UPS as part of computer hardware - depreciation @ 60% on UPS is allowed – Decided partly in favour of Assessee.

  Double Income Taxation Relief (DITR) allowed - Held that:- The decision in Indian Overseas Bank v. Dy. CIT [2014 (2) TMI 930 - ITAT CHENNAI ] followed - The Tribunal need not refer it to the Assessing Officer as well just to see and pass an order - The Tribunal clearly directed the Assessing Officer to enquire into the existence of a DTAA between India and Bangkok - "Enquiry" means to investigate and apply the same - the Assessing Officer has rightly investigated and applied the same and decided the issue – The order of the CIT(A) set aside – Decided in favour of Revenue.

  ---

• 2014 (2) TMI 930
  

  Bad debts written off u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act- Held that:- After the amendment of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from 1st April, 1989, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt - It is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee – the matter remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of Assessee.

  Rejection of P&L account – Provisions of section 115JB of the Act not complied – Held that:- The decision in assessee’s own case for the previous year followed – Held that:- In view of amendment to the provisions of section 115JB by the Finance Act, 2012, the provisions of section 115JB are applicable to the banks as well from assessment year 2013-14 – Decided in favour of Assessee.

  Restriction in claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act – Held that:- There was no application of mind by the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment - Assessing Officer had not come to any conclusion at all having not considered the claim in the light of the conditions set out in Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act - there was no enquiry made during the course of assessment proceedings - the order which was silent on the claim made by the assessee, and allowing such claim, without any discussion, will definitely render it erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue - An order without application of mind is definitely prejudicial to the interests of the revenue – the order of the CIT(A) upheld – Decided against Assessee.

  Disallowance u/s 43B of the Act - Claim of leave encashment – Held that:- The decision in Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1959 (5) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court] relied upon – The provision made by the appellant-company for meeting the liability incurred by it under the leave encashment scheme proportionate with the entitlement earned by employees of the company, inclusive of the officers and the staff, subject to the ceiling on accumulation as applicable on the relevant date, is entitled to deduction out of the gross receipts for the accounting year during which the provision is made for the liability - The liability is not a contingent liability – Decided in favour of Assessee.

  Charging of Tax – Surplus arising on account of takeover – Held that:- The facts that the assessee has been treating the shares of Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. as stock-in-trade has not been rebutted by the AR - The assessee bank has been offering profit on sale of shares as business income - The cancellation of stock-in-trade which has resulted in gain to the assessee is thus a business income – there is no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) – Decided against Assessee.

  Claim of depreciation on UPS at 80% - Held that:- The contention of the assessee that the UPS is an energy saving device, therefore, depreciation @ 80% should be granted cannot be accepted – the decision in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus ORIENT CERAMICS & INDS. LTD [2011 (1) TMI 26 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] followed - depreciation @ 60% granted by treating UPS as part of computer hardware – Decided partly in favour of Assessee.

  Claim of double taxation relief of foreign branches – Held that:- The decision in assessee’s own case for earlier year is followed - The Assessing Officer in accordance with the directions given by the ITAT enquired all the provisions of the DTAA between India and Thailand and as per Article 23(3) by following the tax credit method whatever tax was paid by the assessee in Thailand was given credit to the assessee - The CIT(A) hyper technically held that the only job of the Assessing Officer was to see whether there is a DTAA between India and Thailand - The Tribunal clearly directed the Assessing Officer to enquire into the existence of a DTAA between India and Bangkok – the order of the CIT(A) upheld – Decided in favour of Revenue.

  Deletion of disallowance of contribution towards staff welfare fund – Held that:- The decision in assessee’s own case for the previous year followed - the assessee has not been able to show that the liability has been crystallized or the contribution has been made towards approved fund as per the provisions of the Act - The claim of the assessee based upon the provision of section 43B has no merit - Before the provisions of section 43B can be applicable, deduction must otherwise be allowable under the Act - the contribution towards staff welfare fund is not allowable expenditure – the order of the CIT(A) set aside - Decided in favour of Revenue.

  Depreciation on fixed assets taken over – Held that:- the diminution in the value of the securities held by the bank should be allowed as deduction disregarding the method prescribed in the Reserve Bank of India as per which ‘permanent’ investments had to be valued only at cost and only ‘current ’investments were to be valued at market price at the close of the accounting year” – Decided against Revenue.

  ---

1 ....91011121314151617........ 33