TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness of manufacturing of rectifiers for very long and similar rectifiers had been supplied to different customers earlier than this sale as well - product in question has been designed in house by the assessee and the services provided by M/s Jeet Engineers are only in the nature of facilitating the sales of the product. Even otherwise an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- is too small to be paid as remuneration for designing of rectifiers. As such there is no evidence to hold that the payment made was for the purposes of designing. The claim of the appellant that the same represents revenue expenditure is correct - addition deleted - ITA No. 1237/Chd/2011 - - - Dated:- 24-5-2012 - SHRI T.R. SOOD, Ms. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JJ. Appellant by: Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id money laundering cases and these provisions were basically applicable in relation to gifts because Gift Tax Act had already been repealed. Reliance was also placed on some case laws and speech of the Finance Minister at the time of introduction of Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2004. It was further submitted that money was received from HUF and therefore, the same was exempt u/s 10(2). However, the Assessing Officer did not accept these explanations because the assessee was not paying any interest on the loans and proprietary concern of HUF was not covered by the definition of relative given in Section 56(2)(vi). It was also observed that the money has been received from proprietary concern of the HUF and indirectly from HUF and therefore, the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Shri Bharti Bhushan Jindal has received the sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- from Jindal Electricals which is a proprietorship concern of Bharti Bhushan Jindal HUF, which has been shown as unsecured loan. But the assessee is not paying any interest on the loan. It is apparent that there is no consideration involved in the receipt of this sum from the proprietorship of the HUF as the assessee is not paying any interest on it. The proprietorship of the HUF is no covered by the definition of relative as in Section 56(2)(vi). Therefore, Therefore, the sum received by the assessee from the HUF clearly falls within the purview of income from other sources u/s 56(2)(vi). Therefore, the amount has been received gratuitously (without consideration). Thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), it was mainly stated that it was a kind of commission paid for negotiation of the order and execution of the same. The ld. CIT(A) in view of this stand sought remand report wherein the present Assessing Officer reiterated the stand taken by his predecessor. In countercomments it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the Assessing Officer has misunderstood and wrongly interpreted the expression of consultancy for designing equipment. The firm M/s Jeet Engineers was providing the services by way of sourcing, export, installation of various projects and designing equipments. It was pointed out that the assessee was manufacturer of rectifiers each rectifiers was being tailored made as per the requirement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
