|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 934 Records
-
2019 (3) TMI 1920 - ITAT LUCKNOW
Exemption u/s 11 - Charitable activity u/s 2(15) - Claim under the head ‘objects of general public utility’ OR under the head ‘preservation of environment’ - as upto assessment year 2008-09, had been claiming exemption u/s 11 under the head ‘objects of general public utility’ whereas from assessment year 2009-10 the assessee had claimed the exemption under the head ‘preservation of environment’ - HELD THAT:- We find that vide order [2018 (12) TMI 915 - ITAT LUCKNOW] the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year 2002-03 to 2008-09 on similar grounds though in those years the assessee had claimed exemption under the head ‘objects of general public utility’. However, during the year under consideration the assessee had claimed exemption under the specific head ‘preservation of environment’ (including watersheds, forest and wildlife) as this specific head has been included in the definition of section 2(15) w.e.f. 01/04/2009. The activities of the assessee remained same and the activities being carried out by the assessee has already been held charitable in nature. Learned CIT(A), while allowing relief to the assessee, has held that if the assessee falls into a specific category then specific category will have precedent over the general category. The matter regarding registration has attained finality when Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the Revenue.
The reasoning of the Assessing Officer that activity of the assessee do not qualify under head ‘preservation of environment’ (including watersheds, forest and wildlife) has also been decided by the Tribunal for assessment year 02-03 to 08-09 in favour of the assessee.
Disallowance of expenses towards forest development expenses which the appellant claimed as utilization of funds in relation to the discharge of statutory functions - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has rightly relied on the CAG report wherein the auditor had not pointed out anything adverse with regard to the expenses and therefore, has rightly held that the expenses were shown in line with the objects and therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the same. In view of the above, ground of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Disallowance of expenses debited under the head material loss - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has held that such losses are inherent to the activities such as forest fires or theft of logs in the forest by mischievous/criminal elements. The learned CIT(A) has further held that loss of material has been approved by the higher authorities of the corporation which is based on the report of the Log Manager and we agree with this finding that the amount debited by the assessee towards material loss has been audited by CAG and the accounts have been approved by the State Legislature. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue - Ground of the Revenue’s appeal is also dismissed.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1919 - ITAT CHENNAI
TP Adjustment - international transactions undertaken with the associated enterprise - rejection of segmentation - internal comparison of profitability from the international transactions with unrelated - HELD THAT:- As following the decisions of Birla Soft . [2015 (4) TMI 1239 - DELHI HIGH COURT], we set aside the order of the AO /TPO and remit this issue back to the file of the AO / TPO for determining the arm’s length price in respect of the international transactions undertaken with the associated enterprise be determined by making internal comparison of profitability from the international transactions with unrelated parties after allocating respective revenues and expenses to both the segments. The assessee shall place all relevant materials before the AO/TPO and comply to the requirements of AO/TPO in accordance with law. The AO/TPO shall after affording effective opportunity to the assessee shall decide this issue in accordance with law.
ALP adjustment on the entire turnover (including revenue from third party customers) of the assessee - HELD THAT:- As following the order of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Yongsan Automative India Pvt. Ltd [2017 (12) TMI 855 - ITAT CHENNAI] we hold that the transfer pricing adjustment has to be made only in respect of the transaction of the assessee being a tested party, with associated enterprise outside the country after comparing the transaction made by similarly placed company in uncontrolled transaction with non-Associated Enterprise. Therefore, we are unable to uphold the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel. Accordingly the order of the DRP is set aside and the entire issue is remitted back to the file of the AO/TPO.
Assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1917 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowance u/s. 80IA - whether the amalgamating company i.e. Shanti Processing Ltd. was eligible for claiming u/s. 80IA? - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) in his findings that as per the provisions of section 80IA(12) when any undertaking of an Indian Company which is entitled to deduction under this section is transferred before the expiry of the period specified in this section to another Indian Company then as per clause (b) the provision of this section shall apply to the amalgamated Company as they would have applied to the amalgamating Company if the amalgamation had not taken place and the provisions of subsection (12) would only apply if the amalgamating Company was eligible for claiming deduction u/s 80IA.
As demonstrated from the above facts and circumstances that the assessing officer has disallowed the claim of the assessee on presumption basis that addition was old plant and machinery without bringing on record evidence to substantiate that specified machinery was purchased by Shanti processor Ltd and the assessing officer has also failed to disproved the material fact that similar claim was allowed to the assessee in the assessment year 2009-10 on fulfilling of all the conditions.
Disallowance u/s.14A - assessee had submitted that it had not used borrowed fund for making investment and accordingly no part of interest was required to be disallowed by invoking the provision of section 14A - HELD THAT:- After consideration of above facts and detailed findings in the order of the CIT(A), we are of the view that CIT(A) has rightly held that assessee was having ample interest free fund, therefore, no disallowance in respect of interest expenditure is to be made in the case of assessee by invoking the provision of section 14A of the act.
CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance out of administrative expenditure to the extent of ₹ 2 lacs after taking into consideration the claim of the assessee that no administrative expenditure has been incurred in earing the exempt income. On this issue during the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of Pr. CIT vs. Sintex Industries Ltd. [2018 (3) TMI 1448 - SC ORDER] - we observe that ld. CIT(A) has rightly restricted the disallowance of administrative expenditure to the amount of ₹ 2 lacs after taking into consideration the nature of investment made by the assessee and the nature of expenses incurred. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of the Revenue, therefore, the same is dismissed.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1915 - ITAT MUMBAI
Long term capital gain - AO has adopted stamp duty value of the property as on the date of sale deed - adopting the fair market value as per section 50C as on the date of registration of sale deed on 10.05.2012 as against the assessee executed sale agreement on 02.10.2009 - whether the stamp duty value as on the date of agreement to sale or sale deed to be considered for the purpose of computation of capital gain.? - HELD THAT:- The purpose of introducing section 50C of the Act was to counter suppression of sale consideration of sale of immovable properties. Before insertion of section 50C of the Act to the statute, there are lot of litigations as to consideration shown in document conveying title and payment of stamp duty. To overcome the litigations, the provision of section 50C of the Act has been inserted to the statute w. e. f. 01.06.2003 wherein it is made mandatory to adopt value u/s 50C of the Act for the purpose of determination of consideration.
A proviso to section 50C of the Act has been inserted by the Finance Act. 2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2007 to resolve the genuine and intended hardship, in the case in which the date of agreement to sale is prior to the date of sale and market value of the property as on the date of agreement to sale and date of sale deed is different.
Assessee is bound by the value of sales consideration of ₹ 4,92,00,000/- in terms of the agreement dated 02.10.2009 and if provisions of section 50C of the Act are invoked, then the valuation as may be arrived at by the stamp duty authorities as on 02.10.2009 will be required to be considered for the comparison of the adequateness. Hence, we delete the addition made by AO and allow this issue of assessee’s appeal.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1912 - ITAT LUCKNOW
Exemption u/s 11 or u/s 10(23C)(iiid) - assessee was not registered u/s 12A - gross receipt of the assessee was less than Rupees One Crore - HELD THAT:- Assessee by mistake had claimed exemption u/s 11 of the Act to which it was not entitled as it was not registered u/s 12AA of the Act but the assessee was eligible to avail exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiid) of the Act as the gross receipts of the assessee is less than Rupees One Crore.
The basic exemption limit has also not been considered in the case of the assessee and tax has been calculated on the gross receipts which is not justified. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to remit the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer who should look into the issue and should pass appropriate order after considering the eligibility of the assessee u/s 10(23C(iiid) of the Act - Appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1909 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Liquidated damages paid towards incomplete contracts - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, on identical facts on the same issue, the Special Bench has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. During the appeal hearing, the AR argued that the liability regarding the liquidity damages arose by virtue of terms of contract between the assessee and the customer and the delay in supply would attract the damages and the liability is ascertainable each year and the assessee is required to make payment of damages to the contractee.
Such liability is debited to the Profit & Loss account under the head ‘liquidity damages’. Since, the issue is settled in favour of the assessee by Special Bench and also by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the assessee’s own case, the assessee has requested to allow the same as deduction. On identical issue, for the A.Y.2010-11 . [2016 (9) TMI 1603 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] this Tribunal has deleted the addition and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. Therefore, respectfully following the view taken by this Tribunal, Special Bench and Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue on this ground.
Rental income and excess depreciation - CIT(A) given finding that the difference amount was offered as income from business in the Engineering Unit - HELD THAT:- From the above order of the Ld.CIT(A) and from the explanation of the assessee, it is found that the assessee had already admitted the rental income under the head ‘business’ in Engineering Unit and there was no difference. The department has not brought any material to controvert the finding of the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld. The appeal of the revenue on this ground for the A.Y.2011-12 is dismissed.
Depreciation @50% on cars stated to be for commercial use - HELD THAT:- For the A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11, the assessee had claimed the depreciation @50% and the AO allowed the depreciation as claimed by the assessee. In the instant assessment year, the AO restricted the depreciation holding that the cars are not put to commercial use. No evidence has been brought on record by the AO to establish that the cars were not being put to commercial use. During the appeal hearing also, no material was placed before the Tribunal to controvert the finding of the CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the same is upheld.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1908 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay - HELD THAT:- Permission is granted to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal within 30 days from today. If the petitioner approaches the appellate authority by filing an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay, the appellate authority shall take into consideration all the contentions raised by the petitioner.
It is made clear that the appellate authority, while considering the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, shall take into consideration the period lapsed by the petitioner in this Court by filing this writ petition i.e. from 14.01.2005 till date. Interim order dated 15.3.2005 passed by this Court shall continue for a period of one month hence. It will open for the petitioner to rely upon the subsequent decision of learned Tribunal.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1907 - ITAT DELHI
Stay petition - present applications under Rule 35A of ITAT Rules, 1963, has sought to extend the operation of stay order which demand for AY 2011-12 raised by the Revenue was stayed as per the directions mentioned therein, on the ground that the delay in disposal of the appeal filed by the assessee is not attributable to the assessee - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the averments made in the application under consideration, which got duly corroborated from the orders of hearing recorded by the Hon’ble Bench having not been controverted by the Ld. DR, the delay in disposal of appeal is not attributed to the appellant, in any manner whatsoever and, as such, we are of the opinion that the application under consideration is liable to be succeeded.
Consequently, the stay order dated 02.03.2016, (supra), thereafter extended vide orders dated 09.09.2016, 03.03.2017, 08.09.2017, 09.03.2018 & 14.09.2018, are ordered to be further extended for six months or till the appeal is disposed of whichever is earlier subject to the rider that assessee shall not delay the disposal of appeal in any manner otherwise stay granted shall be vacated.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1903 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
MAT computation u/s 115JB - Whether tribunal erred in failing to appreciate that in view of the reduction of the amounts against diminution in value of investments and non-performing loans and advances and other contingencies from the respective heads in the asset side of the Balance Sheet of the Petitioner and non-showing of them as provision in the audited accounts, such items and amounts should be treated as write off and not provision and hence not covered by Clause (i) of Explanation I of Section 115JB(2)? - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that although the decision of the Gujarat High Court in VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LTD. [2017 (8) TMI 451 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] came a few days after the order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal while rehearing the appeal should assume as if the said judgment was pronounced earlier rehear the appeal on remand on the issue only considering the said decision and all other relevant judgments on this subject and proceed to determine the same within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1902 - ITAT DELHI
Typographical error at para No. 6 - correction is minor correction and therefore does not prejudice either of the parties and does not change the decision of the bench.
The registry is directed to serve upon both the parties above corrigendum which will substitute relevant paragraphs in the order passed by the coordinate bench. The Parties are directed to bring the same to the notices of various concerned authorities and Hon’ble courts, wherever this order is referred.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1900 - ITAT BENGALURU
Revision u/s 263 - CIT observed that the assessee has made (i) provision for payment of interest on fixed deposit and (ii) provision for election/general body expenditure which was not examined - HELD THAT:- We found that in the revision proceedings the assessee has not produced any proof in support of its claim and the method of accounting. Further, in respect of second issue of provision for election/general body expenditure even before the Tribunal, the learned AR could not substantiate with evidence in respect of the claim. Therefore, we, considering the facts and circumstances and the financial statements, are of the substantive opinion that though the AO has called for information in assessment proceedings in respect of other issues and there is no finding/observation on the above two disputed issues in the assessment order. We find that the CIT’s action in revision proceedings that the AO has not made proper inquiry cannot be overlooked. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the CIT on the disputed issues and affirm the same and dismiss the ground of appeal of the assessee.
Order passed by the CIT is ex-parte - HELD THAT:- Prima facie, the CIT(A) has passed the order considering the findings of the AO and there is no representation by the assessee or by the learned AR on the date of hearing. Further, the notice of hearing was sent on 11/08/2016 posting the case on 24/08/2016, being only one hearing provided to the assessee. Therefore, we, considering the principles of natural justice and the facts of the case and the assessee being a co-operative society, restore this disputed issue to the file of the AO to meet the ends of justice and AO shall call for the details and examine the claims.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1897 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition on account of share application/share premium/unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- We observe that the assessee has filed all the necessary evidences to prove identification , genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the investors in the assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings. The assessee has discharged the onus cast upon it whereas the AO has not done any further verification and investigation to disapprove the evidences filed by the assessee.
AO only harped on the statement of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain which has been retracted later on. Moreover out of five investor, two namely Javda India Impex Ltd and Kush Hindustan Entertainment Ltd were already considered by the coordinate bench of the tribunal Hyderabad in the case of M/S Komal Agrotech Pvt Ltd [2017 (7) TMI 605 - ITAT HYDERABAD] wherein the Tribunal held that addition made u/s 68 is bad in law. We also find merits in the arguments of the ld AR that the share capital and share premium can not be added u/s 68 in view of the proviso to section 68 as that is effective and applicable from 1.4.2013.We have perused the decisions relied upon by the assessee and are of the opinion that the case is squarely covered by them. Accordingly we do not find any infirmities in the order of CIT(A) who has passed a very reasoned order and accordingly appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1896 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Alternative remedies - Withdrawal of Writ petition - HELD THAT:- After arguing for sometime, the petitioner, who appears in-person states that he may be allowed to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to take recourse to the alternative remedies as are available to him, in accordance with law.
Dismissed as withdrawn. It shall, however, be open to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedies as may be available to him, in accordance with law.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1894 - ITAT KOLKATA
Disallowance u/s. 36(1)(ii) bonus and commission paid to the directors as per agreements of appointment - CIT(A) made disallowances of bonus & commission to Directors by stating that these were not linked to any specific efforts and without going through the evidence filed before him - HELD THAT:- As payments in question was made to directors of the assessee company. These payments were made pursuant to agreements for payment of bonus and commission copies of which were furnished to the Revenue. The payments were made within the limit prescribed by law. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance on the ground that the agreements are generally worked. In our view, this is not a valid ground to make this disallowance. Agreements are to be understood in such a way in which both the parties to the agreement, desired and understood. Section 36(1)(ii) does not apply in this case. Hence, we allow the grounds of the assessee.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1893 - ITAT MUMBAI
Taxability of receipts of 'standby maintenance charges' in India - 'Fee for technical services' under section 9(1)(vii) - Appellant submits that the receipt of Standby Maintenance Charges from TCL is not taxable in India as the whole activity have been carried out outside India during the year under consideration - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2018 (5) TMI 2070 - ITAT MUMBAI] we notice that in Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2008-09, the Tribunal vide order [2015 (6) TMI 806 - ITAT MUMBAI] has dealt with similar issue, of course qua the revenues earned from “Restoration Services”. On this aspect, the Tribunal held such receipts to be in the nature of “business income‟, and after holding so, the Tribunal went on to deduce the method in terms of which the revenue could be apportioned to India operations in order to determine the income taxable in India.
Tribunal deemed it fit to apportion the revenue on the basis of length of cable in the territorial waters of India. Though the decision has been rendered with respect to the restoration activity, so however, the methodology which has been found to be reasonable by the Tribunal is based on the fraction of length of entire cable system connected to India in its territorial waters. Drawing an analogy from the same, in the instant case too, we find that the standby maintenance charges recovered by the assessee from TCL only qua the length of cable in the territorial waters of India needs to be considered for computing the profits or income accruing to the assessee u/s 9(1)(i)
Reasoning advanced by the Revenue to the effect that the standby maintenance charges are linked to the cable capacity is of no consequence for the present inasmuch as what is required to be decided is the income attributable to the business connection in India, which possibly is the length of the cable in the territorial waters of India - it is only the revenue from TCL which is on account of standby maintenance charges proportionate to the cable length in India that deserves to be considered for computing the profit or loss from standby maintenance activity attributable to India in terms of Sec. 9(1)(i) of the Act. Therefore, on this aspect, we uphold the plea of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to verify the calculation made by the assessee in this regard in its computation of income and recompute the income accordingly.
Computation of the income from standby maintenance activities attributable in India - HELD THAT:- We find that the standby maintenance charges recovered by the assessee from TCL only qua the length of cable in the territorial waters of India needs to be considered for computing the profits or income accruing to the assessee u/s 9(1)(i) of the Act. The reasoning advanced by the Revenue to the effect that the standby maintenance charges are linked to the cable capacity is of no consequence for the present inasmuch as what is required to be decided is the income attributable to the business connection in India, which possibly is the length of the cable in the territorial waters of India. Therefore, in our view, it is only the revenue from TCL which is on account of standby maintenance charges proportionate to the cable length in India that deserves to be considered for computing the profit or loss from standby maintenance activity attributable to India in terms of Sec. 9(1)(i) of the Act. Therefore, on this aspect, we uphold the plea of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to verify the calculation made by the assessee in this regard in its computation of income and recompute the income accordingly. Thus, on this aspect, assessee succeeds as above.
Charging of interest u/s 234B - HELD THAT:- As a settled proposition in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of NGC Network Asia LLC, [2009 (1) TMI 174 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] that there would be no chargeability of interest u/s 234B of the Act as the receipts on account of standby maintenance charges from TCL are subjected to withholding tax u/s 195 of the Act. On this aspect, it was also a common point between the parties that the said proposition has also been affirmed by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the orders. Thus, on this aspect, assessee succeeds.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1892 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income from house property - deemed income from unsold unit/flats which was the closing stock of the assessee under the year of consideration in view of the provisions u/s 22 & 23 - charging notional income considering Annual Letting Value of unsold flats which is closing stock of the appellant - HELD THAT:- We noticed that the factual position of the present case is quite similar to the factual position of decision of the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd [2018 (12) TMI 1870 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein held assessee is engaged in business of construction and development, which is main object of the assessee company. The three flats which could not be sold at the end of the year was shown as stockin- trade. Estimating rental income by the AO for these three flats as income from house property was not justified insofar as these flats were neither given on rent nor the assessee has intention to earn rent by letting out the flats. The flats not sold was its stock-in-trade and income arising on its sale is liable to be taxed as business income. Accordingly, we do not find any justification in the order of AO for estimating rental income from these vacant flats u/s.23 which is assessee‟s stock in trade as at the end of the year. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the addition made by estimating letting value of the flats u/s.23.
Since the case of the assessee has duly been covered by the decision of Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd, therefore, in the said circumstances by honoring the said decision, we deleted the addition raised by AO on account of notional income of the vacant flats. Accordingly, these issues are decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1891 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Recovery proceedings - attachment orders of property with co-owners - HELD THAT:- No doubt, as per the provisions of Transfer of Property Act,1882, against the share of the property of the defaulter proceedings can be initiated since the respective sharers are entitled to transfer their shares without specifying that the transfer is to take effect on any particular share or shares of the transferer as guided by Section 47 of Act,1882. Therefore the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that a co-ownership property cannot be sold without effecting partition cannot be sustained under law. The share is also not specifically mentioned in Ext.P2 document, therefore it is clear that, the parties have got equal share over the property in question in accordance with the provisions of Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Petitioner is not entitled to succeed in the contention advanced with respect to the property held by the petitioner in co- ownership with her husband. After evaluating the situation and hearing respective counsel across the Bar, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents not to proceed against the share of the property held by the petitioner in co-ownership with her husband if she has no liability against the proceedings initiated by the 4th respondent. The property in co-ownership held by the husband can be proceeded with by the respondents.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1890 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of additional depreciation - HELD THAT:- The assessee being resident corporate entity was stated to be engaged in manufacturing of flexible packaging material, printing cylinders & metallized films.
During assessment proceedings, upon perusal of depreciation schedule, it transpired that the assessee claimed additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) on the additions made in fixed assets used for the period of less than 180 days in AY 2012-13. Similar claim was made in the impugned AY and therefore, AO proceeded to disallow the same on the ground that the concerned plant & machinery was already used in various preceding years and it was no longer new plant & machinery. Although the assessee defended the same on the strength of certain judicial pronouncements, however, not convinced, the additional depreciation was disallowed and added to the income of the assessee.
We drew attention to the fact that the Tribunal has confirmed the stand of Ld. first appellate authority for immediately preceding AY 2012-13 [2019 (1) TMI 1899 - ITAT MUMBAI] and therefore, the matter stood covered in assessee’s favour.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1889 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition u/s 50C - sale consideration declared by the assessee is less than the value as per stamp duty valuation authority - fair market value as per AIR information - valuation of the property to DVO to ascertain the FMV - consideration declared by the assessee is less than the value as per stamp duty valuation authority - CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that difference between the fair market value as per DVO report and agreement value which is 5.8% approximately - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that difference between the fair market value as per DVO report and agreement value comes to around 5.8% approximately and Ld. CIT(A) by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.B. Gautam [1992 (11) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] and decision of Krishna Enterprises [2016 (12) TMI 52 - ITAT MUMBAI] decided the issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the difference between the fair market value as per DVO and the value as per agreement is around 5.8% which is not to be considered for making addition under section 50C and thus deleted the addition - We do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) or any reason to deviate from the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1888 - ITAT PUNE
Exemption u/s 11 - application for registration under section 12A of the Act has been granted by the Commissioner on a later date - Assessee submits that it has been granted registration u/s 12AA of the Act vide order dated 18.08.2015 and therefore, the benefit of exemption u/s 11 should be granted to it for the year under consideration in view of the proviso inserted to sub-section (2) of section 12A - HELD THAT:- The assessee was granted registration on 18.08.2015 i.e. the date on which appellate proceedings were pending before the CIT(A). In number of judicial precedents, it has been held that the proceedings before the CIT(A) are continuation of assessment proceedings and once the assessee has been granted registration, then the conditions prescribed in the proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act need to be applied and the assessee in such circumstances, is entitled to the exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Act. Accordingly, we hold so. In such facts and circumstances, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the aforesaid benefit of exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Act to the assessee in the present case and determine the tax liability accordingly.
In the facts of the case before us, the assessee has received 12A registration certificate, which is dated 18.08.2015. The CIT(A) has acknowledged the same and copy of the said certificate is also available before us. In such circumstances, the ratio laid down by the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in Bulandshahr Development Authority [2017 (12) TMI 915 - ITAT DELHI] is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we reverse the order of CIT(A) in this regard and direct the Assessing Officer to allow exemption under sections11 and 12 of the Act, in view of proviso to section 12A(2) - Decided in favour of assessee.
........
|
