|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 9151 Records
-
2015 (12) TMI 1070
TDS u/s 194C - Addition on account of labour charges - Held that:- As decided in Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad vs. M/s Ram Gopal & Sons [2015 (8) TMI 177 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ] the assessee claimed deduction in respect of labour charges paid to about 50 labourers. The Assessing Officer reduced this amount having come to the conclusion that only a few labourers were traceable at the given addresses and some of the addresses were not even confirmed. The Tribunal kept in mind the ground realities in such cases.There were comparable results in expenses of labour charges in earlier years. The deductions were allowed to the assessee. The quantum of expenditure can be compared to the production done by the labour. The labour was engaged on piece rate bases. It was found that there was a co-relation between the production as well as the number of labour engaged. The issue really is a question of fact and appreciation of facts. We are unable to say that this analysis and the findings of the CIT(A) and of the Tribunal are perverse or absurd. - Decided in favour of the assessee.
Addition on account of shortage in production - Held that:- As decided in Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad vs. M/s Ram Gopal & Sons [2015 (8) TMI 177 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ] the Assessing Officer made an addition to the assessee's income having rejected the assessee's case that there was a shortage in production. The CIT(A) found, as a matter of fact, that the assessee had been maintaining the complete details/particulars of opening stock, purchase, consumption, production and sales, which were in fact verified and accepted by the Assessing Officer. The finding is that the addition was made purely on imagination and assumptions without bringing any documentary material on record. The finding is neither absurd nor perverse. - Decided in favour of the assessee.
TDS u/s 194C - Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- The assessee has made payments to the three transporters mentioned in the assessment order for each order of transport executed by them. The assessee has no contract for transport with any transporter. Thus each GR Note becomes a separate contract and since the value of such contract does not exceed ₹ 20,000/- the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source from the said payments. It was further submitted that this is also borne out by the Board Circular No.715 dated 8.8.1995 - Decided in favour of the assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1069
Interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C - CIT(A)'s jurisdiction to entertain the first appeal under Section 246 against the chargeability of interest - ITAT upholding the order of CIT(A) in deleting interest u/s 234A and 234C and to restrict the levy of interest u/s 234B - Held that:- Apex Court in Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1986 (5) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court) observed that the levy of interest is the part of the process of assessment. Although Sections 143 and 144 of the Act do not specifically provide for the levy of interest but it is nevertheless a part of the process of assessing the tax liability of the assessee. The Supreme Court held that since levy of interest is a part of the process of assessment, it could be challenged in appeal provided the assessee disputes the chargeability of interest on the ground that he is not liable to the levy of interest at all. It was clarified that where the assessee claims waiver or reduction of the interest levied, that could not be agitated in appeal under Section 246 of the Act but more appropriately by resorting to revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner. It was further observed that before the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner can be invoked for waiver or reduction, the assessee is required to demonstrate before the Assessing Officer that there is a case for waiving or reducing the levy of interest. Thus the appeal filed by the assessee laying challenge to the very levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act before the CIT(A) was clearly maintainable.
As the assessee had paid due taxes within 4 days of the receipt of the cheque in the month of September, 2007 and filed the return voluntarily, thus, the CIT(A) had rightly held that interest under Section 234A of the Act be not charged for the reasons that the sale was conditional sales which was to be completed only after the realization of the last cheque and thus considerations were beyond the control of the assessee. Further, interest under Section 234B of the Act was also restricted by directing the Assessing Officer to charge it only on the amount of capital gain worked out after taking sales consideration at the amount received by the assessee during the financial year 2006-07 and deducting proportionate indexed cost of acquisition and allowing exemption under Section 54EC of the Act for ₹ 50 lacs out of the capital gain so worked out. Still further, the liability to pay interest under Section 234C of the Act qua the capital gains was held to be unwarranted in view of the specific provisions of the Act and the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the interest levied under Section 234C of the Act - Decided against revenue
-
2015 (12) TMI 1068
Computation of capital gains - adoption of FMV - Held that:- The CIT(Appeals) had applied the value determined by the stamp Valuation authorities as to be fair market value of the property on the date of transfer, against which revenue is not in appeal. Hence the value assessed in the hands of the assessee is ₹ 1.25 crores as against the value assessed by the DVO at ₹ 2.97 crores. The perusal of the grievances raised by the assessee reflects that all the grievances were against the valuation framed by the Valuation Officer and even if the value is reduced as per the said grievances, there is no substance in the grievance of the assessee where reduced value has been adopted by the CIT(Appeals) as fair market value of the property.
In the entirety of the facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the stand of the assessee and the objections raised against the valuation report have no meaning including the stand of DVO to have adopted commercial rates for valuing the said property as the assessment in the hands of the assessee has not been made on such valuation report but on a much lesser value of ₹ 1.25 crores and even if credit is given on account of all the objections raised by the assessee, the value of property adopted in the hands of the assessee is much lower than the value determined by the DVO. Hence we uphold the order the CIT (Appeals) in adopting the value assessed by the Stamp Valuation authorities as the fair market value of the property on the date of transfer in computing the income of the assessee also confirmed by ITAT. - Decided against assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1067
Addition made u/s 145(3) on account of valuation of closing stock - ITAT deleted the addition - whether invoking of provisions of Section 145(3) were validly invoked as the assessee had valued the closing stock on LIFO basis as per his previous practice? - Held that:- We do not find any merit in the appeal. The assessee is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of jewellery. The Tribunal had noticed that the assessee was following LIFO method for valuing its closing stock from year to year which is one of the prescribed methods of accounting standards issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India for valuation of inventory. The said method was also followed by the assessee in the assessment year 2007-08 and in the said year, the Assessing Officer had made an addition of ₹ 32,08,977/- on account of valuation of closing stock of gold ornaments. The Tribunal relating to the assessment year 2007-08 in the case of the assessee upheld the decision of the CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer as on the basis of the doctrine of consistency in relation to method of calculation of inventory as also the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in assessee's own case, recorded findings in favour of the assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1066
Release of amount of TDS from the compensation of their acquired land seeked - Held that:- Examining the issue of taxability of interest under Section 28 of the Act, in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bir Singh (HUF) [2010 (10) TMI 581 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ] it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that the interest awarded by court on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Act was chargeable to tax as income from other sources in the year of receipt
In view of the above, the tax at source has been rightly deducted and the petitioners can claim the refund, if any, admissible to them by filing the income tax returns in accordance with law. - Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1065
Nature of expenses - ITAT estimated the revenue expenditure and came to the conclusion that 70% expenditure was revenue and 30% was capital - Held that:- As the case here relates to the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 where the allowability of the expenditure is not in dispute but the issue is whether it had to be allowed in one year as revenue expenditure or by way of depreciation under Explanation 1 to Section 32 of the Act by spreading it over the years. At present, the number of years that have gone by from the initial year has been about more than thirteen years. Learned counsel for the revenue has not been able to demonstrate that there had been any change in the rate of taxation during these years. Thus, even if the substantial portion of the expenditure had been capitalized and depreciation allowed under Explanation 1 to Section 32 of the Act, at the prevalent rate admissible under the Act and the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the entire amount would have been allowed as deduction on account of depreciation by now and the case would be revenue neutral. Therefore, in such circumstances as well, we do not find any justification in interfering with the order of the Tribunal. - Decided against revenue
-
2015 (12) TMI 1064
Donation of gold chhabba - whether in light of explanation to Section 2(24) (iia) of the Act, the Dera is not a deemed trust? - Held that:- There is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that entire activities done by the appellant were of charitable and religious in nature and were being done in the name of Dera. It is completely devoid of any merit, because the Dera, Sant Amir Singh Ji, of whom, the appellant-assessee is claiming himself to be a Mukh Sevadar, is admittedly, not registered under Section 12AA of the Act or under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. There is also no trust deed of it, showing its activities as charitable or religious nature. It has also not obtained any certificate under Section 10 (23C) (iv) of the Act. Its account were never audited under any law. Even no approval under Section 80G(5) of the Act was ever obtained from any prescribed authority. It was evident before the Revenue Authorities that the entire affairs of the Dera, i.e donations/collections were solely managed and controlled by the appellant-assessee, according to his own whims and fancies in his individual capacity.
The Tribunal has rightly observed that the collection certificates were also stereo-typed without any PAN etc. Even no effort was made to produce any so called donation affirming the same. Bank accounts were found in the sole name of the appellant-assessee without indicating any adverse eventuality. The nomination of his son by him in the bank accounts, clearly required to draw an inference that all the bank accounts were his personal accounts and not of the Dera. The appellant has miserably failed to show before the authorities that any charitable activities was ever been carried out by him as prescribed under Section 2(15) of the Act. Its affiliation with any other charitable institution was also not proved. The Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal as well have found on the basis of material before them that the appellantassessee had purchased LIC policy, gas connection, cylinder etc. from the so called funds of the Dera, which were indicative of the fact that the bank account was being operated by him for his personal use. The cumulative effect of all these factors shows that all the transactions done by the appellant-assessee, were in his individual capacity and thus, no case to differ with any of the findings of the Tribunal upholding the decision of the CIT(A) and that of the Assessing Officer has been made out. - Decided against assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1063
TDS u/s 194J or 192 - payments made to doctors who are regular employees of the hospital - whether there does not exist an employer/employee relationship between the doctors and the hospital? - Held that:- In the present case, it has been categorically recorded by the CIT(A) that the contract for service implies a contract whereby one party undertakes to render services i.e. professional or technical services whereas contract of service implies relationship of master and servant and involves an obligation to obey orders in the work to be performed and also as to its mode and manner of performance. The professional doctors are not entitled for LTC, concession in medical treatment of relatives, PF, leave encashment and retirement benefits like gratuity. They are required to follow some defined procedure to maintain uniformity in action and some administrative discipline but this does not mean that they have become employees of the hospital. Further, the department had not taxed the payments received by any of the doctors from the assessee under the head 'income from salary'. Concurring with the findings recorded by the CIT(A), it has been correctly held by the Tribunal that there does not exist employer-employee relationship between the assessee and the persons providing professional services. It has been further recorded that on consideration of the agreement in its entirety vis a vis the case law relied upon by the assessee, it is evident that it is not a case of employer-employee relationship between the assessee and the doctors.
Assessing Officer was not right in concluding on the combined reading of the above stipulations that the income of the doctors was salary. ITAT was correct in treating chargeability of payments made to doctors who are regular employees of the hospital as per the provisions of Section 194J - Decided against revenue
-
2015 (12) TMI 1033
Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - Held that:- The return filed by the assessee was a non est return. Even no explanation was furnished by the assessee to substantiate the claim of not filing the return voluntarily. The Tribunal observed that the case of the assessee fell under main provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as there was definite concealment in the facts and circumstances and, therefore, reference to Explanation 3 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the CIT was unjustified.
The Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was clear concealment of income under the main provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and reference to Explanation 3 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the CIT(A) was unwarranted. Learned counsel for the assessee was unable to demonstrate that either the approach of the Tribunal was erroneous or perverse in any manner or that the findings of concealment recorded by the Tribunal are based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence or material on record which may warrant interference by this Court. - Decided against assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1032
Refund of TDS in respect of the amount received on account of interest awarded under Section 28 on acquisition of the agricultural land - Held that:- On enhanced amount of compensation in respect of the acquired land falls for taxation under Section 56 of the Act as "income from other sources" and is exigible to tax in the year of receipt under cash system of accountancy. It had also been observed that where the assessee is not maintaining books of accounts by adopting any specific method, it shall be treated to be cash system of accountancy. In the present case, the interest received by the petitioner was on account of delay in making the payment of enhanced compensation and, therefore, would fall under Section 28 of the 1894 Act. Such payment could not par-take the character of compensation for acquisition of agricultural land and, thus, was not exempt under the Act. Once that was so, the tax at source had been rightly deducted by the payer. See Sarti v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. and others [2011 (5) TMI 939 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT]
In view of the above, the tax at source has been rightly deducted and the petitioners can claim the refund, if any, admissible to them by filing the income tax returns in accordance with law. - Decided against assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1031
Amount expended for putting up multi-storied structures on leasehold land and refurbishing leasehold buildings - capital or revenue expenditure - entitlement to depreciation - ITAT held the amount expended as capital expenditure, rejecting the claim of the appellant for treating the same as revenue expenditure and, therefore, deductible under section 32(1) and Explanation 1 of the Income-tax Act - Held that:- On a reading of Explanation it is categoric and clear that so far as the expenditure incurred as contemplated in the Explanation is concerned, a legal fiction is created, by which the assessee, enjoying a leasehold right on a building is treated as the owner of the building. So according to us, the question to be considered in such a case is whether the assessee has acquired any enduring benefit by putting the refurbished building to use over a period of time in accordance with the agreement entered into between the assessee and the building owner.
So far as the question regarding the expenditure incurred by the assessee for refurbishing the building taken on lease is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that, after the introduction of Explanation 1 to section 32(1) of the Act, there is no scope left out at all for any interpretation since by a legal fiction, the assessee is treated as the owner of the building for the period of his occupation. This means that by refurbishing, decorating or by doing interior work in the building an enduring benefit was derived by the assessee for the period of occupation and, therefore, is a capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure. So also, as contended by the senior counsel for the Revenue the criteria that is to be adopted for identifying the enduring benefit is the nature of enhancement and advantage that the assessee has derived by putting the building to use for business purposes. According to us, by adding Explanation 1 to section 32(1), Parliament has manifested its legislative intention to treat the expenditure incurred by the assessee on leasehold building as capital expenditure and, therefore, Explanation 1 to section 32(1) cannot be subjected to any other interpretation Further, the language of Explanation 1 is very plain and clear and there was no scope for providing a different meaning for the words used and, hence, we are bound to consider the question by giving the literal meaning to the expressions and phraseologies by the Legislature applied.
In the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the law laid down by the Division Bench of this court in Joy Alukkas India Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (6) TMI 80 - KERALA HIGH COURT] requires reconsideration.
Matter referred to larger bench
-
2015 (12) TMI 1030
Deduction claimed under section 80HHC - whether the supporting manufacturer is entitled to seek the benefit of cash assistance (export incentive) granted by the Government exclusively to the export house or trading house in terms of sub-section (3) of section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act and if such incentive is passed on by the export house or trading house to the supporting manufacturer, whether such amount would be hit by the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act? - Held that:- If the trading house is agreed to and in terms of the said agreement, they have passed on the additional price-export incentive, supported by the certificate in terms of sub-section (4A) of section 80HHC, then the requirement under sub-section (1A) of section 80HHC is satisfied by the supporting manufacturer. The incentives stated in section 28(iiia), (iiib) and (iiic) of the Income-tax Act, no doubt, would accrue only to the export trading house. But once the said amount stands transferred to the supporting manufacturer by the export house or trading house, it takes the colour of additional price and that is in relation to the agreement between the parties subject to issuance of certificate in terms of sub-section (4A) of section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act. In the instant case, the assessee had directly exported the goods to the foreign constituents and received the export incentives directly from the Government based on the agreement between the export house and the assessee, as a supporting manufacturer.
So long as the export trading house transfers the export incentive accrued to its export turnover in the form of additional price to the supporting manufacturer pursuant to an agreement entered into between them, supported by sub-section (4A) of section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, the Department cannot deny the benefit of deduction claimed under section 80HHC(1A) of the Income-tax Act.
In the light of the above, we answer the question of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1029
Disallowance under S.40(a)(ia) - Held that:- The principle which emerges is that if the expenditure claimed was paid within the relevant previous year, no disallowance can be made under S.40(a)(ia). However, in the present case, assessee has to establish that the expenditure claimed was paid during the relevant previous year and nothing remained payable at the end of the year. We therefore, set aside the impugned orders of the lower authorities on this issue, and direct the Assessing Officer to verify this fact and allow the expenditure if it is found that the entire expenditure claimed has been paid within the relevant previous year and nothing remains payable/outstanding at the end of the year. The assessee must be given reasonable opportunity of being heard on the issue. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1028
Reopening of assessment - Long Term Capital Gains computation - Held that:- The Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s 147 after having credible information on record during the course of survey regarding the quantum of Long Term Capital Gains. Recalling the facts, the order of the CIT(A) for the Asst. Year 2008-09 was not regarding the quantum of Long Term Capital Gains, but was regarding the Asst. Year in which the Long Term Capital Gains is to be brought to tax. Hence, it cannot be held as the review on the basis of change of opinion. The issue in the appeal for the Asst. Year 2008-09 and also for the Asst. Year 2006- 07 was regarding the year in which the Long Term Capital Gains was to be brought to tax. The issue in the appeal was never regarding the quantum of Long Term Capital Gains. Hence the submissions of the learned Authorized Representative in this regard do not support the case of the appellant that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There is no change of opinion considering the facts of the case. Hence the decision relied on by the Authorized Representative are not relevant to the facts of the case. The submissions of the learned Authorized Representative regarding change of opinion are rejected and the 148 proceedings are upheld - Decided against assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1027
Levy of fee u/s 234E in the order u/s 200A - Held that:- The adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E was indeed beyond the scope of permissible adjustments contemplated under section 200A. This intimation is an appealable order under section 246A(a), and, therefore, the CIT(A) ought to have examined legality of the adjustment made under this intimation in the light of the scope of the section 200A. Learned CIT(A) has not done so. He has justified the levy of fees on the basis of the provisions of Section 234E. That is not the issue here. The issue is whether such a levy could be effected in the course of intimation under section 200A. The answer is clearly in negative. No other provision enabling a demand in respect of this levy has been pointed out to us and it is thus an admitted position that in the absence of the enabling provision under section 200A, no such levy could be effected. As intimation under section 200A, raising a demand or directing a refund to the tax deductor, can only be passed within one year from the end of the financial year within which the related TDS statement is filed, and as the related TDS statement was filed on 19th February 2014, such a levy could only have been made at best within 31st March 2015. That time has already elapsed and the defect is thus not curable even at this stage. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, the impugned levy of fees under section 234 E is unsustainable in law. We, therefore, uphold the grievance of the assessee and delete the impugned levy of fee under section 234E of the Act. See Lions Club of North Surat Charitable Trust Versus Income Tax Officer TDS-2, Surat (New). [ 2015 (9) TMI 1231 - ITAT AHMEDABAD ] - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1026
Taxation of Employees Stock Option Plan under fringe benefit tax - Held that:- When the CBDT clarified that with a view to bring stock options within the purview of fringe benefit tax, Finance Act, 2007 has inserted a new clause (d) in sub-section (1) of sec. 115WB of the Act, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Employees Stock Option Plan cannot be brought under any other sub clauses before introduction of clause(d) to sec. 115WB(1) by Finance Act, 2007. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that in case the Employees Stock Option was allotted or transferred on or after 1.4.2007, the same is liable for fringe benefit tax. From the material available on record, it is not clear the date on which the Employees Stock Option was allotted or transferred. There is no reference about the date of such allotment in the assessment order also. The CIT(A), without referring to the date of the actual allotment, has proceeded on the footing that sec.115WB(1)(d) is applicable in respect of Employees Stock Option allotted or transferred on or after 1.4.2007. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the date of actual allotment or transfer of Employees Stock Option is crucial for determination of the issue arises for consideration. In the absence of any material, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the actual date of allotment or transfer needs to be verified by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the entire issue raised by the assessee is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the issue afresh and bring on record the date of actual allotment or transfer of Employees Stock Option and thereafter decide the issue as indicated above by this Tribunal. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1025
Penalty levied under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) - Held that:- We hold that the income offered by the assessee pertaining to the cash seized from the assessee and the declaration of the assessee that the said cash relates to the unaccounted cash received vide the sale transaction entered into by the assessee, which in turn, was declared by the assessee in the return of income filed pursuant to issue of notice under section 153A of the Act, is the income detected during the course of search and seizure operation. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the assessee is exigible to levy of penalty on such income which was detected during the course of search and seizure operation, which in turn has been offered by the assessee in return of income filed pursuant to notice issued under section 153A of the Act.
The assessee having made a wrong claim in the return of income i.e. by way of claim of deduction under section 54 on account of investment in two properties and in respect of capital gains account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in a written Note had furnished the break-up of income on which penalty was levied. We uphold the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty on the above said two accounts. - Decided against assessee
-
2015 (12) TMI 1024
Disallowance u/s 43B on account of VAT collected but not paid - VAT was not claimed as expenditure in the profit and loss account - Held that:- In the facts of the present case, admittedly, the assessee had collected VAT amount of ₹ 22,68,716/- and had paid Rs.Rs.8,21,505/- against the said amount due during the accounting period, the balance amount of ₹ 14,47,211/- was not paid by the assessee before the close of year or before the date of audit report. However, under the provisions of section 43B of the Act, in case the said amount is paid by the assessee before the due date of filing the return of income as prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, the assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction under section 43B of the Act. The necessary details in this regard are not available on record. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify whether the assessee has deposited the said amount before the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act and allow the claim in accordance with law.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1023
Penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) - addition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) - Held that:- There is a credit balance in respect of M/s. Emmar Diamonds Ltd., appearing in the books of the assessee during the relevant financial year. It is also a fact that the assessee is a shareholder in M/s. Emaar Diamonds Ltd. It is also a fact on record that the credit balance appearing in the name of M/s. Emaar Diamonds Ltd. has been treated as a deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act and in the quantum of appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee has accepted the addition by not pressing the ground raised. However, these facts alone would not be sufficient to conclude that assessee has either furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed the particulars of income so as to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c). It is well known that assessment proceedings and proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) are two distinct and separate proceedings.
In the facts of the present case, on a reference to the statement of account of loan transaction with M/s. Emaar Diamonds Ltd., a copy of which has been submitted at Page-8 of the paper book, it is very much clear that the assessee had an opening balance of loan to M/s. Emaar Diamonds Ltd. amounting to ₹ 2,32,26,000. During the year, the assessee has also received payment against the aforesaid loan to M/s. Emaar Diamonds Ltd., on different dates starting from 2nd August 2004. As it appears on 23rd September 2004, the assessee received an amount of ₹ 1.50 crores from M/s. Emaar Diamonds Ltd., as a result of which there was a credit balance in favour of the said party. It is the contention of the assessee that M/s. Emaar Diamonds Ltd. per mistake repaid in excess. However, immediately after such mistake came to the notice the assessee on 28th September 2004, paid back an amount of ₹ 50 lakh to M/s. Emaar Diamonds Ltd. On a perusal of the statement of account the explanation of the assessee appears to be correct. It is seen from the statement of account that the assessee is regularly advancing loan to M/s. Emaar Diamonds Ltd., therefore, the claim of the assessee that on 23rd September 2004, M/s. Emaar Diamonds Ltd., while making repayment has paid back excess amount per mistake is quite plausible. Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that the assessee cannot be accrued of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars of income. Therefore, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) in the present case, in our view, is not justified. Accordingly, we delete the penalty imposed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1022
Benefit of deduction u/s 10AA - Held that:- Trading done by the assessee is a service and, therefore, deduction under Section 10AA is allowable. We further noted that on similar facts in case of Goenka Diamonds and Jewellery Limited (2012 (3) TMI 258 - ITAT JAIPUR), the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail. The provisions of Section 51 of SEZ Act were also considered. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tax Recovery Officer Vs. Custodian Appointed Under The Special Court, (2007 (8) TMI 343 - SUPREME Court) and the decision CIT Vs. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd., (2010 (11) TMI 88 - Delhi High Court), were also taken into consideration and thereafter it was concluded that in view of the Instruction No.1 of 2006, dated 24-3-2006 as modified by Instruction No.4 of 2006, dated 24- 5-2006 issued by the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India and the definition of service given in the SEZ Act, 2005, which overrides the word 'service' accruing in Section 10AA by virtue of Section 51 of the SEZ Act. The assessee engaged in trading in nature of re-export of imported goods and for the same the assessee was entitled deduction under Section 10AA of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
9911796707
