|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 735 Records
-
2019 (9) TMI 1640 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - low tax effect - HELD THAT:- Today, when the matter came up for consideration, the learned standing counsel for the Appellant submits that by virtue of the change of litigation policy notified by the Government as per the Circular bearing No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019, the amount in dispute does not cross the hurdle of minimum benchmark and in the said circumstance, the above appeal is sought to be withdrawn.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1637 - ITAT BANGALORE
Interest u/s 244A - only contention raised that when the AO did not allow credit of TDS in A. Y. 2001-02 on this basis that corresponding income is not offered to tax in that year, the AO should have suo moto allowed credit of TDS in correct year - HELD THAT:- We find no merit in this claim because this not the case of the assessee that corresponding income was offered to tax in the same year in which TDS credit is claimed and the AO wrongly disallowed the claim of TDS credit. This is admitted position of fact that the assessee claimed TDS credit in A. Y. 2001-02 and offered corresponding income for tax in an earlier year and therefore, the delay in granting of refund is attributable to the assessee and as a consequence, interest u/s 244A is not allowable. In our considered opinion, if the TDS credit is claimed in a year in which corresponding income is not offered to tax, the AO has to disallow such claim of TDS credit in that year and it is not practically possible for the AO to allow such credit in the correct year in which corresponding income is offered to tax and it is for the assessee to point out the year in which such income is offered to tax and then the AO can allow credit of TDS in that year but in such case, delay in granting refund is attributable to the assessee and therefore, interest u/s 244A is not allowable. We therefore, decide this issue against the assessee in both years.
Allowability of depreciation on lease transactions - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case that the lease transaction is sham because the assessee on the one hand pays the value of machinery and at the same time receives the equivalent amount as deposit and thus, there is no out flow of fund so as to validly make payment for purchase price. It is seen that no difference in facts is pointed out in the present year or in any other year. When, the lease transaction itself is sham as per the earlier tribunal order in assessee’s own case under similar facts, no other argument or judgment cited in the written submissions reproduced above is required to be considered. Hence, we decline to interfere in the orders of the lower authorities on this issue in all years including the present year.
Amounts forfeited by the depositors in terms of the scheme approved by the High Court of Karnataka - This is by now a settled position of law that treatment in the books by the assessee is not decisive. This is also a settled position of law that taxability of a receipt cannot be on this basis that the assessee offered it for taxation. If a receipt is a capital receipt as held by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Manipal [2014 (10) TMI 706 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] it cannot be taxed merely because the assessee treated it as revenue receipt or offered it for taxation. No other difference in fact is noted by CIT (A). Learned DR of the revenue also could not point out any other difference in facts. Hence, respectfully following this judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High court, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee.
MAT credit in respect of MAT paid in earlier years - HELD THAT:- It is held by CIT (A) that there is no merit in this ground because the AO adopted the tax payable under regular provisions as it was more than MAT. As per written submission reproduced by CIT (A) on page 3 of his order, it is submitted by the learned AR of the assessee that this issue may not arise as on date but it may arise in future. Hence, it is seen that the assessee wants an advance decision. In the written submissions before us also as reproduced above, it is submitted that this ground has been raised as a matter of abundant precaution. Hence, it is seen that before us also, the assessee wants an advance decision. Hence, this ground is rejected.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1631 - ITAT DELHI
Maintainability of appeal on low tax effect - HELD THAT:- DR though stated that it is not apparent from the present appeal as to whether the case of the assessee falls into any exception to the circular but at the same time, he was not able to demonstrate the exception applicable to the assessee, therefore, his arguments has no force. We find that the tax effect in this case is less than ₹ 50 lakhs, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable and therefore, we dismiss the same.
However, the parties are given the liberty to file for recalling of this order if the appeal is covered by the exceptions listed at para- 10 (scope of which stands widened vide amendment dated 20/08/2018) or para 11 of the order. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1628 - ITAT KOLKATA
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - unexplained cash credit u/s 68, interest disallowance treating it to be bogus and unexplained expenditure u/s 69C - HELD THAT:- It is noted that the issue involved in this case is no longer res integra in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs Atha Mines Limited [2018 (12) TMI 1931 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]. In the decided case the Hon’ble High Court upheld the decision of this Tribunal allowing the claim of the assessee for set off of business loss of the current year against the income assessee u/s 68 in the same year. In this regard, we may also gainfully refer to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs M/s Atibir Hitech Pvt Ltd [2019 (3) TMI 1952 - ITAT KOLKATA]
As per the CBDT Circular No. 11/2019, we find that the order of AO on this issue cannot be termed as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, we find that the show cause issued by the ld. Pr. CIT and the consequent order passed u/s 263 is legally unsustainable for want of jurisdiction and accordingly the same is hereby cancelled. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1627 - DELHI HIGH COURT
TP Adjustment - adjustment of AMP expenses - HELD THAT:- The issue relating to adjustment of AMP is covered by the decision of the Court in Sony Ericsson Indio Pvt. Ltd [2015 (3) TMI 580 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 634 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
We are of the considered opinion that the AI.P of an international transaction involving AMP expenses, the adjustment made by the TPO/DRP/AO is not sustainable in the eyes of law. At the same time, we cannot ignore the submission made by the learned DR that the matter is pending before Hon'ble Apex Court and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court would be binding upon all the authorities. In view of the above, we set aside the orders of authorities below and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. We hold that as per the facts of the case and the legal position as of now and discussed above in this order, the adjustment made by the TPO/DRP/AO in respect of AMP expenses is not sustainable. However, if the above decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court which is under consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court is modified or reversed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, then the Assessing Officer would pass the order afresh considering the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1626 - ITAT MUMBAI
Granting the Interest u/s 244A - Refund claim - HELD THAT:- Co-ordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in assessee’s own case in Indo-Gulf Corporation Ltd. [2017 (1) TMI 1779 - ITAT MUMBAI] while relying upon the decision of Lucknow Bench in assessee’s own case cited [2011 (7) TMI 1322 - ITAT LUCKNOW ]decide the issue in favour of assessee holding that interest under section 244A has to be granted till date of issuance of refund voucher - Decided in favour of assessee.
Interest on the interest - Assessee has fairly conceded that this ground of appeal is covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Engineers India Ltd. [2015 (3) TMI 110 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Hence, this ground of appeal is dismissed.on the interest.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1623 - ITAT MUMBAI
Penalty levied u/s 271E - assessee has contravened the provisions of section 269T - assessee has repaid loans to various sister concerns through journal entries - HELD THAT:- We observe that in this case the assessee has done the repayment of loans by way of journal entries within the group concerns. As per the assessee the said entries were made out of business considerations and in order to carry on the business of the assessee efficiently and more efficaciously. This is also undisputed that there was no tax evasion by way of repayment of these loans by journal entries. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case [2018 (7) TMI 2241 - ITAT MUMBAI] as held that issue decided in favour of the assessee by holding that no penalty can be imposed under section 271D of the Act for having accepted loans/deposits through journal entries as there was a reasonable cause. Also see LODHA PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. [2018 (12) TMI 1774 - SC ORDER]
Thus as there exited reasonable cause for accepting the loans by way of journal entries and thus do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A). Since the case of the assessee is fully covered as discussed above, we are inclined to uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1622 - ITAT KOLKATA
Addition u/s 68 - whether the AO can make an addition of only the share premium u/s 68 while accepting the share application money at face value to be genuine? - HELD THAT:- As relying on M/s. Trend Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (11) TMI 1131 - ITAT KOLKATA] we have to necessarily hold that the addition of only share premium by accepting the face value of the shares as genuine, cannot be sustained. Thus, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss this appeal of the revenue.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1621 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 80IB - HELD THAT:- The question of law on the face of it suggests that only factual matters are sought to be raised in the application of Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the tribunal. No question of law far less any substantial question of law is involved.
Moreover, this is an appeal of 2009 regarding which the appellant/revenue has taken no steps for enlistment before it was listed in this Court.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1603 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment - notice u/s 142(1) came to be issued in the name of deceased person - HELD THAT:- This Court is convinced that the impugned order requires to be set aside since the notice itself was issued against a dead person. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner is hereby set aside. Consequently, the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(2), Bangalore is also set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to redo the entire procedure bearing in mind that the assessee is no more.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1600 - ITAT MUMBAI
Unexplained cash credits - Assessee explained it to be refund in cash of advance paid by cheques to two farmers for purchase of agricultural land on non-materialization of purchase deal - HELD THAT:- The case of the Revenue is based upon the fact that the assessee has paid advance for the purchase of land, which beard the same survey number from two parties from whom advances were received. The case of the Revenue is simply on the basis that refund of advance was made in cash on various date and deposited by the parties in the bank account of the assessee.
As perused the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31.03.2008 and observe that the advances given to Shri Mehmudbeg Umergeb Mirza and Shri Amirbeg Umergeb Mirza were outstanding as on 31.03.2007 and were nil on the corresponding date in the current previous year i.e. 31.03.2008. We also observe from the ledger account of these two parties as appearing in the books of the assessee that the advances were refunded on various dates due to cancellation of the purchase agreements. Thus, the case of the Revenue is totally based upon suspicion and presumptions whereas the assessee has proved by way of evidence in the form of copy of balance sheet, ledger account, confirmations/affidavits from the parties who made the refunds. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Allowability of Staff Welfare Expenses - addition as made by the AO for providing food to the employees during the office hours in the Ramzan month as not been incurred for the business of the appellant - HELD THAT:- Assessee being a follower of Muslim religion has to incur these expenses in order to motivate the work force - assessment order and the appellate order were passed in a cryptic manner without bringing any facts on record to prove that these were personal expenses of the Directors. The addition was made purely on the basis of grey work of the AO - CIT(A) also upheld the same observing that expenses were incurred in a disproportionate ration and not reasonable. Even if for a moment, if we go by the theory of the Revenue authorities that the expenses are not reasonable, even then the total disallowance is not justified - addition made by the AO is not correct and needs to be reversed.- Decided in favour of assessee.
Addition towards excess physical stock over the book stock of the assessee - GP margin on excess of book stocks over physical stocks - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee is operating from four locations as mentioned hereinabove and has the system of Management Information System in place for accounting of its inventories. The assessee has filed reconciliation explaining the discrepancies in the stocks as noted by the search party. The assessee has also filed before us the various documents and reconciliation explaining the said discrepancies. Moreover, the assessee has explained why the said discrepancies have arisen which are very minor and within norms - As in Balaji Wire Pvt. Ltd. [2007 (8) TMI 7 - HIGH COURT, NEW DELHI] the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has affirmed the order of the Tribunal deleting the addition on account of excess stock calculated by the Revenue - assessee can not be made to suffer from the lethargy of the officers of the revenue when the search party did not find any incriminating evidences - we direct AO to delete the additions on account of excess stock and on account of GP margin on excess of book stocks over physical stocks. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1599 - ITAT DELHI
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - adjustment on provision for Research and Information Transaction is exclusion of the company M/s Aditya Birla Capital Advisor P. Ltd from set of comparables - HELD THAT:- It is undisputed that the company M/s Aditya Birla Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. has earned revenue from providing management services. Further, from the annual report of the company, it is also evident that the company has been engaged in advising and managing venture capital funds. The activity of advising investment management is quite distinct from the services provided by the assessee under the transaction of research and information services. We hold that the company is functionally dissimilar to the assessee and direct the learned AO/TPO to exclude the company from the final set of the comparables.
TP adjustment - interest on outstanding receivables arising from International transactions of research and information and IT support services - HELD THAT:- Tribunal in the case of Pegasystems Worldwide India (P) Ltd [2015 (10) TMI 2495 - ITAT HYDERABAD] has held as in case of a debt free company, there is no requirement for making transfer pricing adjustment on account of the interest on outstanding receivables.
We have verified the balance sheet of the assessee and find that the assessee has not borrowed any fund for its business activity and, thus, it being a debt free company, the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pegasystems Worldwide India (P) Ltd Vs ACIT (supra) is squarely applicable on the facts of the case. Accordingly, we delete the transfer pricing adjustment made on account of interest on receivables - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1598 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Exemption u/s 11 - imparting of Yoga training through well-structured yoga camps - activity of the assessee falls under the clause 'education' and 'medical relief OR the last limb of 'advancement of general public utility' - Proof of charitable activity - charitable objects defined u/s 2(15) - Whether providing training of Sudarshan Kriya as per the syllabus of Shri Pandit Ravi Shanker, a famous meditation Guru through his sponsored charitable trusts cannot be termed at per with “Relief to the Poor”, “Education” and “Medical Relied”, rather the same would fall under the last limb of the proviso of Section 2(15) of the Act i.e. “the advancement of any other object of general utility”? - HELD THAT:- A bear perusal of section 11(2) would indicate that if a charitable trust fails to apply income referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of subsection 1 towards its object during the previous year but has accumulated or set apart either in whole or in part, for application of the object of the trust in future years then such accumulation is to be regulated under the mechanism provided in clause(a),(b) and (c); the accumulation or setting apart would be required to be invested or deposited in the form or mode specified in sub clause 5.
As far as scope and interpretation of sub-clause 5 is concerned both the parties are not disputing to the same. This clause provides a mechanism as to how the accumulated fund would be required to be invested - while construing the meaning and scope of section 13(1) (d) we have to bear in mind the complete scheme of the section.
As per Circular No. 387, dt. 6th July, 1984 the relevant income is only required to be disallowed and not in respect of the income of the appellant trust. However, the exemption under section 11 or 12 of the Act is not permissible to be denied. In this aspect we have also carefully considered the judgement passed by the Learned Tribunal in the case of Gurdayal Berlia Charitable Trust [1990 (6) TMI 92 - ITAT BOMBAY-B] where similar issue was discussed taking into considering that particular circular being No.387 containing explanatory notes on the Finance Act, 1994 wherein as pleased to hold that the breach of section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) would lead to forfeiture of exemption of income derived from such investment and not the entire income would be subjected to the maximum marginal rate of tax under section 164(2) of the Act. Ultimately it was held that exemption under section 11 is available to the assessee only on the income to the extent the same is derived in conformity of section 11 and applied during the year for such purpose of charitable trust.
Donation as application of funds - Whether assesses activities are not in the nature of charity as hit by section 2(15)? - HELD THAT:- If the donations have been made from the income of the previous year and not out of the accumulation under section 11(2) then the same be eligible to be considered as application of income as long as the recipients are charitable organizations. Having regard this particular aspect of the matter the AO has been further directed by the Learned CIT-A to verify as to whether these trust have the status of exemption under the Income Tax Act and also whether they are charitable organisation. Subject to such verification of the objects of the recipients the AO was directed to treat the application of income of the assessee, which in our considered view is just and proper and without any ambiguity so as to warrant interference. The order passed by the Learned CIT(A) is,thus,, conformed. Resultantly the appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed.
Corpus donation addition since the assessee’s activities is not in the nature of charity as hit by section 2(15) as alleged - CIT(A) observed that Section 2(15) r.w.r. 13(8) of the Act is not applicable to the case of the appellant and further that the appellant would eligible to claim benefit u/s 11 and 12 of the Act including the deduction u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act which has been confirmed by us in this appeal. The Learned CIT(A) has, therefore, directed the Learned Assessing Officer to verify whether the corpus donation were received or the voluntary donations have been received by the appellant with a specific direction taking into consideration the entire aspect of the matter, which in our considered opinion is just and proper without any infirmity so as to warrant interference. Thus the appeal preferred by the revenue is found to be devoid of any merit and hence dismissed.
Loss of sale of assets - AO considered the appellant as an AOP and assessed the income of the assessee under section 28 to 44 and denied to claim of separate loss on account of sale of assets and thus it should have been considered in the block of assets as observed by the AO - HELD THAT:- Since the assessee has already been declared as an eligible exempt entity by the CIT(A), the assessee has further been declared to be eligible to claim the loss or profit on account of sale of assets in its income and expenditure account and in that view of the matter the relief towards such claim as loss on the sale of assets has been allowed by the CIT(A) - we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) so as to warrant interference - the question is accordingly answered in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Consequently the appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1595 - ITAT BANGALORE
TP Adjustment - Determination of Arms Length Price (ALP) of the international transaction for rendering software development services (SWD) by the assessee to its Associated Enterprises (AE) under the provisions of section 92 - Comparable selection - exclude is L & T Infotech Ltd - HELD THAT:- As relying on the light of the decision pointed out by the learned DR, the issue of comparability of this company should be sent back to the AO / TPO for fresh examination as was directed by the Tribunal in the case of CGI Information Systems and Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd.,[2018 (10) TMI 1797 - ITAT BANGALORE]. We hold and direct accordingly.
Exclusion of provision of bad and doubtful debts from the operating cost of the comparable companies - While considering the international transaction in the distribution segment, the TPO has himself considered provision for bad and doubtful debts as part of the operating expenditure and by the same logic he should have treated provision for bad and doubtful debts as part of the operating cost in the hands of the comparable companies also. As far as the software development segment of the assessee is concerned, there is no provision for bad and doubtful debts.
As in the case of Principal CIT Vs. Business Process Outsourcing India Pvt. Ltd., [2018 (7) TMI 380 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] wherein in an appeal against the order of the Tribunal holding that provision for bad and doubtful debts should be considered as part of the operating expenditure, the Hon’ble High Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue as one not giving rise to any substantial question of law - we are of the view that provision for bad and doubtful debts should be treated as operating expense while computing the PLI OP/OC of the comparable companies which ultimately remains for comparison.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1589 - ITAT CHENNAI
Bogus LTCG - Addition u/s 68 - Denial of deduction u/s 10(38) - company in which the assessee invested is a penny stock company - HELD THAT:- It is not brought on record how the assessee is involved in promoting the penny stock company and how the assessee involved in inflating the shares of the company. Moreover, the copy of the investigation report said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee. On identical circumstances, this Tribunal in the case of Kanhaiyalal & Sons (HUF) v. ITO [2019 (2) TMI 1640 - ITAT CHENNAI] has remitted back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.
This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the issue raised by the assessee with regard to deduction under Section 10(38) of the Act is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer - Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1579 - ITAT MUMBAI
Stay of recovery of outstanding demand - Addition of of transfer/assignment of call options under the frame work agreement - HELD THAT:- The assessee cannot be faulted for non-disposal of the appeal. At the same time, the contention of the learned Departmental Representative that identical issue relating to transfer/assignment of call option in the assessment year 2012-13 has been decided by the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench against the assessee cannot be ignored altogether - contention of the learned Departmental Representative that the amount of income accruing to the assessee on account of transfer/assignment of call option has to be assessed in any one of the assessment years, considering the fact that the assessee has already exercised its option to transfer/assign, merits consideration.
As mentioned earlier, contention of learned Departmental Representative that the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2012-13 [2018 (1) TMI 1302 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] on similar facts, has confirmed the transfer pricing adjustment on exercise of call option also has to be kept in perspective while considering assessee’s prayer for grant of stay. Further, it is seen from record, the corresponding appeal of the assessee is now posted for hearing on 5th November 2019.
Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances, prima facie case, balance of convenience and without prejudice to the respective rights and contentions of the parties, which will be duly considered at the time of hearing of the corresponding appeal, we direct the assessee, in the interregnum, to pay a further sum of ₹ 25 crore in two equal instalments of ₹ 12-50 crore each by the end of September, 2019 and October, 2019 and furnish proof of such payment before the AO. Further the corporate guarantee furnished by the assessee as per the earlier direction of the Bench should also continue. Subject to fulfilment of the aforesaid conditions, recovery of balance outstanding demand shall remain stayed for a period of six months from the date of this order or till disposal of the corresponding appeal of the assessee, whichever is earlier.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1576 - ITAT MUMBAI
Rectification application u/s 254 - applicant/assessee has stated that the assessee was not served by the notice of appeal as the address of the applicant/assessee has been changed - HELD THAT:- Perusal of record reveals that hearing of appeal was fixed on 28.11.2018. The assessee was directed to be served through ld. DR for the revenue. Perusal of record further reveals that ld. DR for the revenue furnished report of Inspector from office of ITO-13(1)(1), Mumbai wherein it was reported that Inspector visited the address at B-16, Roopkamal, S.V. Road, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-67, however, the door of premises was locked, the notice of hearing was affixed (pasted).
Before us, assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee was not served with the notice and that they were not aware about the pendency of appeal. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact explained before us by ld. AR of the assessee that assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in not appearing when the case/appeal was taken up for hearing. Therefore, we find a sufficient cause within the meaning of Rule 25 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules and recalls the order dated 16.01.2019. Misc. Application filed by assessee is allowed.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1572 - ITAT MUMBAI
Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - shareholder of M/s Gayatri Films & Music Pvt. Ltd viz. Mr.Jyoti Sagar (holding 21.06% shares) was also having substantial shareholding of 26.94% in the assessee company viz. M/s Sagar Arts Pvt. Ltd. - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, as is borne from the records, the assessee company is not a shareholder in M/s Gayatri Films & Music Pvt. Ltd. In fact, the entire issue hinges around the aspect as to whether any shareholder of M/s Gayatri Films & Music Pvt. Ltd. (holding not less than ten percent shares) was simultaneously during the year holding not less than twenty percent of equity shares in the assessee company viz. M/s Sagar Arts Pvt. Ltd., or not. As per the revenue, one common shareholder viz. Mr. Jyoti Sagar who was holding 21.06% shares in M/s Gayatri Films & Music Pvt. Ltd., was simultaneously having a 26.94% shareholding in the assessee company. We have perused the records and are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the manner in which the shareholding of Mr. Jyoti Sagar in the assessee company and M/s Gayatri Films & Music Pvt. Ltd. has been worked out by the A.O - Decided against revenue.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1560 - ITAT DELHI
Validity of the assessment u/s 153A - HELD THAT:- As noticed that the assessee in his written submissions dated 22.08.2016 stated that the search team had confronted the assessee with unauthentic document. In the present case, it is not clear as to whether any au then tic document was confronted to the assessee or not.
AO so mentioned that a reference was made on 27.11.2012 but it is not clear for which purpose the said reference was made . So in the absence of clear facts on record, this issue is also set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to be adjudicated a fresh, in accordance with law after providing a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee”. Since, the verbatim of the order, in the present case is also same, and in the absence of any change in the material facts, we hereby remand the matter back to the file of the AO to adjudicate a fresh, in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2019 (9) TMI 1558 - ITAT DELHI
Income from house property - Enhancing the ALV of the let out property - CIT(A) computing the ALV of the School Building @ the rate of 8% of investment and in enhancing the ALV of the let out property and thereby enhancing the income - interest paid on secured loan, utilized for construction of school building in respect of which full rental income as included the computation of taxable income - Whether CIT(A) erred in invoking the provision of section 251(2) and adding to the taxable income being 50% of interest claimed and allowed by the Assessing Officer - HELD THAT:- Both the above issues have been decided in favour of the assessee by in the case of same assessee for the A.Y. 2010-2011 [2018 (6) TMI 1280 - ITAT DELHI] - Decided in favour of assessee.
........
|
