Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 221 - AT - Income TaxCapital gain - scheme of merger - benefit of set off of carry forward losses in respect of the said capital gains both under the normal and MAT provision - HELD THAT:- Conclusion of the ld. CIT(A) that the merger in question, approved by the Hon'ble High Court is a colourful device, is illegal and without any factual or legal base. Invoking GAAR provisions, when they are not applicable for the impugned assessment year is also bad in law. The dichotomy in the order of the ld. CIT(A) is clear from the fact, that he chooses to tax capital gains in question, in the hands of the assessee company, though he holds that the merger is a sham transaction. We are unable to approve this finding in view of the binding order of the Hon'ble High Court on the merger. Thus, we direct the AO to grant benefit of set off of carry forward losses in respect of the said capital gains both under the normal and MAT provisions. DR had argued that, for the purpose of indexation, the fact that the assessee had leasehold rights from the year 1966 and that these leasehold rights were converted into free hold rights w.e.f. 26.11.2010 by payment of ₹2.39 crores as cost of conversion has to be taken into consideration and hence the entire gain cannot be held as long term capital gain for the purpose of indexation. For this the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no indexation has been clained by the assessee on this amount of ₹2.39 crores paid towards cost of conversion of leasehold property into free hold property. In the result, ground No. 1 of the assessee is allowed. Addition on account of house rent - Income from house property - HELD THAT:- This issue is covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by order of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kishanlal and Sons [2002 (10) TMI 62 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] rental is the rental received by the assessee from 1962 onwards, and also during the assessment years in question, as the genuine return on the assessee's property, as a genuine deed of lease entered into by the parties at arms length - Also in OBEROI HOTELS PVT. LTD. [2016 (1) TMI 169 - ITAT KOLKATA] even as per the deeming provision of Section 23(l)(a), in the case of let out property, only the actual rent received was required to be considered as annual value of property. The AO failed to appreciate such estimation of annual letable value as per provision of Section 23(1 )(a) was called for only in case of vacant property and not where the property was actually let out since in the case of let out property, the assessee was not entitled to anything over and above the agreed rent. The said action of the AO has resulted in taxing notional income in the hands of the assessee, which never accrued and hence cannot be brought to tax. Accordingly, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition . Capital gain from transfer of capital asset - LTCG or STCG - HELD THAT:- Legislature has used the expression ‘held’ as against “owned”. Therefore, the contention of the AO that ownership is relevant is not in accordance with the provision of the Act. The above view finds support from the recent judgement of Kolkata ITAT in the case of Stewarts & Lloyds of India Ltd. vs. CIT [2016 (3) TMI 178 - ITAT KOLKATA] where it was held that in computing capital gain ownership of the property not to be considered, in computing the capital gain from the date of asset held by the assessee is to be considered. Disallowance u/s 14A - as per CIT-A no interest expenses can be attributed while working out disallowance u/s 14A 'r.w.r 8D and disallowance under clause (iii) of Rule 8D has been rightly worked out by the AO - HELD THAT:- This decision is in line with the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and PCIT vs. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P.) Ltd. [2018 (12) TMI 410 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. The propositions of law laid down in these case laws that, when they are interest free funds available to the assessee then the presumption is that such interest free funds have been utilised for non-interest bearing investments. Thus, we uphold this finding of the ld. CIT(A). Disallowance of premium payable on redemption of FCCB - HELD THAT:- Liability is not a contingent liability. Deduction is liable on yearly basis as the liability accrues on time basis. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of National Engg. Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1998 (9) TMI 65 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] is relied in this regard. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. [1997 (4) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] laid down the principle that, deduction should be allowed on pro-rata basis over the terms of the bond. Employees’ contribution to PF & ESIC to be decided in favour of assessee.
|