|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 441 to 460 of 10077 Records
-
2019 (12) TMI 663
Reassessment proceedings u/s.147 - as argued issue of notice u/s.148 without application of mind on the material provided by the Investigation Wing of the Department and giving mechanical approval of 151(2) with proper satisfaction and reasons and competent authority - HELD THAT:- Where the content of the notice are correct and which has been issued in the correct context then typographical error in address of PAN does not have material impact as per provisions of section 292B of the Act. We, further find that the assessee has duly received the notice u/s.148 of the Act and duly participated in the assessment proceedings and also stated that the original return filed by it may be treated as return in response to notice u/s.148, therefore any defect in the notice presumed to have been validly served as per provisions of section 292BB of the Act.
With regard to contention of the assessee that the AO has failed to apply his mind and notice has been issued without application of mind, we find that the AO was in possession of the information from the ACIT, Central Circle-10, New Delhi which stated that the parties under consideration from whom the assessee has shown transactions were only accommodation entry provider, which was admitted in their statement recorded u/s.131 of the Act. We, further note from the reasons recorded at para 2, page 36 that the AO has categorically mentioned that he has scrutinized the audited accounts for the assessment year ending March 2006 which shows that the assessee has disclosed these transactions but the fact that the assessee company has obtained accommodation entries from the above mentioned three entities controlled by Shri Rakesh Gupta, Shri Vishesh Gupta, Shri Navneet Jain and Shri Vaibhav Jain was not disclosed.
The entry provider entries did not have any genuine business activity as admitted before ACIT, Central Circle-10, New Delhi, therefore, the AO had reason to believe that by the taxable income represented the transactions with the above cited entities escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee company to disclose material facts truly and fully necessary to make assessment for A.Y. 2006-07. Thus, we find that the AO has duly applied his mind and verified the information from the audited accounts of the assessee. Therefore, the contention of the ld.Counsel that the notice u/s.148 has been issued without application of mind does not hold water. - Decided against assessee.
-
2019 (12) TMI 662
Undisclosed income introduced in the form of agricultural income - HELD THAT:- Issue involved in the assessee’s appeal is identical as in the case of sister concern in case of M/s. Gullu Mal Gulachi Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO [2019 (12) TMI 628 - ITAT JAIPUR] CIT (A) has taken a reasonable percentage of 15% expenditure of the gross agricultural income and that too the agricultural income from agricultural operations excluding the income from sale of trees. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the prevailing conditions in the agricultural sector, the claim of the assessee cannot be accepted. CIT (A) has taken a reasonable view in estimating the expenditure at 15% - No error or illegality in the order of the ld. CIT (A) in estimating the expenditure @ 15% of the gross agricultural income.
-
2019 (12) TMI 661
Interest free loans to sister concerns - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. [2019 (1) TMI 757 - SUPREME COURT] has affirmed the view of the High Court to the effect that if the interest free funds available to the assessee were sufficient to meet its investment, then it could be presumed that the investment were made from the interest free funds available with the assessee. The Apex Court in the case of Hero Cycles Ltd. [2015 (11) TMI 1314 - SUPREME COURT] also analyzed laid down the same dictum. In the instant case, the interest free funds available with the assessee were more than the advance paid to its sister concerns, therefore the issue in hand remanded to the file of AO to decide accordingly as per dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Ground No.1 & 2 are co-related and hence allowed for statistical purposes.
Interest subsidy by the Revenue Authorities as Revenue receipt - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has correctly observed that the appellant has himself shown the amount of interest subsidy as Revenue Receipt however, it is a fact that as per the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sh. Balaji Alloys (supra), the interest subsidy has been treated as Revenue receipt, hence in view of the same, the Assessing Officer is directed to consider this aspect afresh while following the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sh. Balaji Alloys [2011 (1) TMI 394 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT]
Disallowance of Bank Interest expenses will decrease the (claimed) loss of the assessee, but will also increase deduction u/s 80-IB - HELD THAT:- As in the case of Sunandan Aggarwal Vs. ITO, Jammu [2016 (2) TMI 1266 - ITAT AMRITSAR] the disallowances of interest shall result in decrease of loss and therefore, cannot be treated as taxable income as the same will not change the amount of deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act. In the interest of justice, in our considered view, it would be appropriate to remand the instant issue to the file of Assessing Officer for decision afresh as per dictum of aforesaid tribunal's judgments. Hence, revised ground No.4 also stands allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2019 (12) TMI 660
Revision u/s 263 - Assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) - HELD THAT:- Books of accounts, voucher Bank statement invoice and purchase bills are ready available for your inspection. In view of the above, we hold that the assessment order was framed under section 143(3) of the Act after due verification by the AO. Accordingly, we are of the view that the order of the AO cannot be held as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of Revenue on account of non-verification of the facts as stated above. See MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] - We quash the order passed by the Ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 659
Disallowance u/s.14A r.w.Rule 8D - HELD THAT:- ITAT in the own case of the assessee bearing [2018 (9) TMI 1743 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] has deleted the addition made by the AO on account of interest expenses by observing that the interest income exceeds interest expenses. Respectfully following the same we delete the addition confirm by the Ld.CIT (A) on account of interest expenses.
Regarding the administrative expenses, we note that the assessee claimed that it has not incurred any expenses. However, the learned AR for the assessee before us has not demonstrated based on the documentary evidence that the assessee has not incurred any expenses in connection with the exempted income. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of the authorities below. Hence, the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Addition made by the AO in part u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D while determining the book profit u/s.115JB - HELD THAT:- Disallowances made under the provisions of Sec. 14A r.w.r. 8D of the IT Rules, cannot be applied to the provision of Sec. 115JB of the Act as per the direction of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jayshree Tea Industries Ltd. [2014 (11) TMI 1169 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]
Disallowance as per the clause (f) to Explanation-1 of Sec. 115JB of the Act independently - HELD THAT:- We feel that ad-hoc disallowance will service the justice to the Revenue and assessee to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings and unnecessary litigation. Thus we direct the AO to make the disallowance of 1% of the exempted income as discussed above under clause (f) to Explanation-1 of Sec. 115JB of the Act. We also feel to bring this fact on record that we have restored other cases involving identical issues to the file of AO for making the disallowance as per the clause (f) to Explanation-1 of Sec. 115JB of the Act independently. But now we note that there is no mechanism provided under the clause (f) to Explanation-1 of Sec. 115JB of the Act to make the disallowance independently. Therefore our action for restoring back the issue to the file of AO would unnecessarily cause further litigation. Thus we limit the disallowance on an ad-hoc basis @ 1 % of the exempted income as per the clause (f) to Explanation-1 of Sec. 115JB of the Act. Thus the ground of appeal of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed.
Addition on account of Professional Fees - HELD THAT:- The income tax has to be levied in the hands of the right assessee and the right assessment year, but the fact of the present case are different so far as the assessee is liable to pay tax under the provision of MAT. Thus we agree with the contention of the ''Ld.AR, that even if the impugned income is added to the total income of the assessee then also it will be tax neutral exercise. It is because there will not be any change on the tax amount as the assessee is paying tax under the provision of MAT.
There is no dispute that the impugned income is taxable under the Act, and therefore the same has been offered to tax in the subsequent assessment year. Thus there cannot be any benefit to the Revenue by adding the impugned income to the total income of the assessee in the year under consideration. Hence we are not inclined to uphold the findings of the authorities below. Accordingly we set aside the order of the ''Ld.CIT (A)'' and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Addition of the total development expenses - whether the amount of profit declared by the assessee can be enhanced by the amount of expenditure incurred by it which were not claimed as deduction being part of closing inventory ? - HELD THAT:- AO should reduce the impugned expenses from the amount of closing inventory and disallow the corresponding expenses debited in the profit and loss account, leaving the profit as declared by the assessee intact.
Whether the impugned expenses needs to be added as a part of the closing inventory? - There is no ambiguity that the expenditures incurred by the assessee in connection with the inventories needs to be added in its value. But such expenditure must be based on the documentary evidence. In the case on hand, the learned CIT (A) has given very clear finding that the assessee has not produced the documentary evidence in support of such expenses except a ledger which is not sufficient enough to justify the genuineness of the expenses. The learned AR for the assessee has also not produced any supporting document in connection with such expenses. Therefore, in the absence of documentary evidence, we concur with the finding of the learned CIT (A).
There cannot be any addition to the total income of the assessee on account of such expenses for the reasons as discussed in the preceding paragraph. Accordingly, we direct the AO to reduce the value of the inventory for the work in progress as well as disallow the corresponding expenses debited by the assessee in the profit and loss account. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of the above.
-
2019 (12) TMI 658
Deduction u/s 80IA - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute at the end of Revenue as to the eligibility of assessee fulfilling the condition needed to claim deduction u/s. 80IA(4). We therefore respectfully following the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. [2016 (10) TMI 1111 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] as well as the decision of the Tribunal in the case of assessee for A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 are of the considered view that assessee has rightly computed the deduction u/s. 80IA(4) r.w.t 80IA(8) by calculating the market value of the power generated by the captive power plant by adopting the rates charged by the Gujarat Electricity Board to its customers. We accordingly set aside the findings of lower authorities and allow the respective grounds of appeal of assessee.
MAT computation - not reducing the provision written back in the profit and loss account from the book profit under section 115JB - HELD THAT:- A plain reading of the above provision reveals that the amount of provision written back shall be reduced from the book profit if the same has suffered the tax under MAT provision in the earlier years. Apparently, it appears that there is no ambiguity that the provisions pertaining to the assessment year 2002-03 and 2003-04 were not suffered to tax under the provisions of section 115 JB . However, the question arises where the assessee was subject to tax under normal computation of income even after giving the effect of such provision under MAT liability. In such a situation, we are of the view that it shall be deemed as if such provision has suffered to tax under MAT provision and the assessee shall get benefit in the year in which it is written back in the profit and loss account while determining the income under MAT provision of the Act. See M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORP. LTD. AND VICE-VERSA. [2018 (9) TMI 1924 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] - Impugned provision written back needs to be reduced from the book profit as claimed by the assessee. Accordingly we reverse the order of the learned CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 628
Undisclosed income introduced in the form of agricultural income - gross agricultural income shown by the assessee from the agricultural operation against which the assessee has claimed expenditure - expenditure claimed by the assessee is around 4.9% - HELD THAT:- CIT (A) has taken a reasonable percentage of 15% expenditure of the gross agricultural income and that too the agricultural income from agricultural operations excluding the income from sale of trees. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the prevailing conditions in the agricultural sector, the claim of the assessee cannot be accepted. The ld. CIT (A) has taken a reasonable view in estimating the expenditure at 15%.
-
2019 (12) TMI 627
Disallowance being commission paid to specified person / Director u/s 40A(2) - unreasonable and excessive expenditure - HELD THAT:- For making disallowance u/s. 40A(2) the onus is on the Revenue to show that payments made by assessee to persons referred in clause (b) are excessive or unreasonable with regard to fair market value of the goods or services received by the assessee. In the present case the authorities below have failed to examine terms and conditions of appointment of Shri Atul Kirloskar. If the terms of appointment allow payment of such commission at the time of appointment, the commission paid to Shri Atul Kirloskar is allowable, provided the commission paid is within the limits specified under Companies Act. We are of considered view that this issue needs revisit to the file of Assessing Officer for reexamination in the light of our above observations. The ground No. 1 of the appeal is thus allowed for statistical purpose.
Disallowance of Aircraft expenses - AO disallowed 1/3rd of expenditure and depreciation on the ground that the Aircraft has been used for non-business purposes - Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has restricted the expenditure to 25% - HELD THAT:- We observe that the issue of allowability of expenditure and depreciation on Aircraft was considered by the Tribunal in the past. The Tribunal [2017 (9) TMI 1832 - ITAT PUNE] for assessment year 2004-05 has restricted the disallowance of expenditure on Aircraft to 15%. Since, the facts in assessment year under appeal and reason for disallowance is identical, respectfully following the order of Tribunal in assessee‟s own case, we deem it appropriate to modify the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue and restrict the disallowance to 15%.
Disallowance of Expenses u/s. 14A - HELD THAT:- The provisions of the Act or the Rules framed there under does not specify the manner of recording satisfaction u/s. 14A of the Act. The recording of satisfaction is subjective. The assessee has not made any suo-moto disallowance u/s. 14A for earning exempt income. After examining the assessment order we observe that the AO has recorded satisfaction before applying the provisions of Rule 8D. Hence, we do not find any merit in the contention of the assessee. Accordingly, the solitary issue raised in the appeal by the assessee is without any merit and hence, dismissed.
Allowability of depreciation @ 60% on UPS and other allied items - HELD THAT:- In assessment year 2009-10 the Co-ordinate Bench has upheld the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in allowing depreciation @ 60% on UPS and other allied items. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in assessment year under appeal has granted relief to the assessee by following its own order in assessment year 2009-10. We find no infirmity in the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue. Accordingly, the same is upheld and ground No. 2 of the appeal is dismissed.
Addition u/s. 14A - HELD THAT:- The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that where the assessee is having both interest bearing funds and interest free funds, it is presumed that the investment are made by utilizing interest free funds. In the light of the facts and decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. (supra), we restore this issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for recomputation of disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. Accordingly, ground No. 3 of the appeal by Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose.
Disallowance of commission u/s. 40A(2) - HELD THAT:- We find that this issue was considered by the Tribunal in appeal by Revenue in assessee‟s case in assessment year 2009-10. The commission paid to the Directors was allowed by the Tribunal. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue. Accordingly, the same is upheld and ground No. 4 of the appeal is dismissed.
Subsidy received by the assessee from Maharashtra Government under Package Scheme of incentive, 2001 - Revenue or capital receipt - HELD THAT:- We further observe that the Co-ordinate Bench in appeal by the Revenue [2019 (7) TMI 1149 - ITAT PUNE] has confirmed the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in holding the sales tax benefit received by the assessee as capital receipt not liable to tax. Since, the facts in the assessment year under appeal are identical, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue. Accordingly, the same is upheld and ground No. 5 of the appeal is dismissed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 624
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - disallowance of depreciation and other expenses in respect of running of a boiler and turbine while computing the income under the head 'other sources' on the ground that there were strong indication that neither the boiler nor the turbine were ready for the use up to 31.03.1992. - HELD THAT:- The proviso declares that where the original assessment was made under Section 143(3) of the Act, after scrutiny of the records, no action shall be taken after the expiry of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year, unless the case attracts the exceptions provided by proviso to Section 147 of the Act. It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that material facts were either not disclosed or even after the same were sought for, were not furnished, and no new facts have been brought on record by the Assessing Officer.
Respondent has disclosed fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment by way of disclosing the hire income for the boiler and turbine and the interest cum income on deposits on share application money as well as claiming depreciation in respect of hired out boiler and turbine and by way of furnishing necessary documents before the Assessing Officer. CIT and the Appellate Tribunal, after considering the material on record have rightly held that notice under Section 148 of the Act issued on 03.04.1997, is bad in law as the same is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 147 of the Act.
-
2019 (12) TMI 619
Disallowance of Provision for Warranty - Disallowance of provision for stock obsolescence - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) was constrained to confirm the disallowances for want of details only. Hence, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity to furnish the relevant details. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) in respect of both the above said issues and restore them to the file of the AO for examining them afresh by considering the details furnished by the assessee and for deciding both the issues in the light of decision rendered by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in AY 2008-09. The assessee is also directed to furnish the details in support of the claims made to the satisfaction of the assessing officer.
Whether the recovery of administrative expenses would form part of operating income for the purpose of computing operating profit margin? - To examine the correctness of the findings of the TPO, we examined the Annual Report and it is noticed by us from Schedule 13 to the P&L Account that the above amount has been shown as 'Administrative expenses recovered' which clearly indicates that the administrative expenses recovered are nothing but the reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the assessee for the above company and therefore, if such income is excluded from the operating revenue, corresponding expenses have to be excluded from the operating cost. Hence, we are in agreement with the submission of the assessee that the administrative expenses recovered to be considered as operating revenue, considering the fact that the TPO has not reduced corresponding expenses from the operating cost. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. The finding of the DRP is based on settled position of law and do not require any interference. Decided in favour of the assessee
-
2019 (12) TMI 618
Disallowance of business expenses from the remuneration earned by the assessee from the partnership firm assessed as business income u/s. 28 (v) - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that in case of another partner such salary paid to the employees was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) as an expenditure from the remuneration of the partnership firm.
Further the payment of salary of the two employees is not in dispute. We, therefore, find merit in the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the CIT(A) cannot alter the nature of expenditure. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlik Kothari [1969 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] has held that expenditure incurred by the partner for earning income from the partnership firm is an allowable expenditure. The various other decisions relied on by the assessee in the case law compilation also supports his case. Further the rule of consistency also is in favour of the assessee, since in the preceding and subsequent years such salary paid to employees were allowed as business expenditure from the salary income received from the partnership firm. No proceedings u/s. 147 or 263 have been initiated in subsequent years after the order of the CIT(A), rejecting the claim of the assessee. In view of the above discussion we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the disallowance made by the AO. Accordingly the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is set aside and the ground raised by the assessee on this issue is allowed.
Addition under the head “income from the house property” - AO made addition on the ground that the assessee did not submit any documentary evidence in support of his claim that the premises was vacated by Sinclair Knight Merz Consulting (India) P. Ltd. - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) also the assessee did not give any supporting evidence that the premises was vacated by the said tenant for which he upheld the action of the AO. It is the submission of the assessee that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate the claim by producing necessary evidence. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to grant an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate with evidence to his satisfaction that the tenant had in fact vacated the premises for the intervening period.
-
2019 (12) TMI 617
Penalty levied u/s 271B - delay in furnishing audit report - HELD THAT:- The audit report was obtained within the due date prescribed u/s 44AB of the Act. The delay has occurred due to delay in filing return of income.
The assessee has stated that it was under bonafide belief that the audit report could also be filed before 31.3.2015. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the audit report was available with the assessing officer before he completed the assessment.
Delay in furnishing audit report has resulted only in technical venial breach which does not cause any loss to exchequer could be applied here also. Accordingly, following the above said decision of Cochin bench of Tribunal, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271B of the Act for the year under consideration. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (12) TMI 613
Addition as rental income by adding security deposit - assessee has declared rental income only for six months and has not declared rental income for the balance six months - tenants did not pay the rent and raised dispute before the court - HELD THAT:- Since the tenants have filed suit before the Hon'ble High Court for recovery of security deposit, then the assessee could not have adjusted the security deposit towards it unrealised rent. We further find that in A.Y 2016-17, the assessee has included ₹ 63.36 lakhs in it profit and loss account after the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In our considered opinion, the action of the Assessing Officer is not acceptable and since the ld. CIT(A) has upheld the action of the Assessing Officer, both the lower authorities have erred in making the addition and sustaining the addition. Addition is unwarranted and deserves to be deleted. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 is allowed.
Disallowance on account of depreciation on car and interest on car loan - allowable revenue expenses - HELD THAT:- Depreciation has been claimed by the assessee on the written down value of the asset which means that in earlier years, the asset was used for the purposes of business. Nowhere the Assessing Officer has brought any material evidence on record to suggest that there is a closure of business activities. On the contrary, we find that in furtherance of its business activities, the assessee has further advanced ₹ 65 lakhs towards land at Chandan Hola, Delhi which means that the assessee was, in fact, carrying out business activities during the year under consideration.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Capital Bus Service [1980 (2) TMI 69 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that the only condition for allowability of depreciation is that the business should not have been closed out once for all and that the assessee should demonstrate that hopes of the business being revived are alive and real.
Assessee was in fact, engaged in furtherance of its business activities and, therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has closed down its business once for all. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for claim of depreciation. Similarly, interest on car is also coming from earlier years as the money was borrowed in earlier years. Therefore, in our humble opinion, there cannot be any disallowance for want of any business activity as the assessee was very much engaged in its business activities. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to delete the addition
-
2019 (12) TMI 612
Provisions of Section 50C applicability even prior to 1st October, 2009 in respect of transaction which took place prior to 1st October, 2009 - AO was of the opinion that the provisions of Section 50C of the Act should be invoked in the present transactions, accordingly he completed the assessment by adopting guideline value prescribed in the said properties as deemed consideration - HELD THAT:- The provisions of Section 50C of the Act have come into vogue w.e.f. 01.10.2009 and clearly states that the provision will come into effect from 01.10.2009. Further, the CBDT Circular No.5/2010, dated 03.06.2010, has also clearly explained that the provisions of Section 50C of the Act will come into effect from 1st October, 2009 and it is further clarified that the provisions of Section 50C have no application in respect of transaction which are not registered with the registration authorities.
The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. R. Sugantha Ravindran [2013 (3) TMI 271 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held after introduction of the words "or assessable" after the words "adopted or assessed", such transfers where the value assessable by the stamp valuation authority are also brought into the ambit of section 50C. Thus, such introduction of new set of class of transfer would certainly have the prospective application only and not otherwise. Hence, the assessee's transfer admittedly made earlier to such amendment cannot be brought under section 50C. Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 611
Penalty u/s 272A(2)(c) - non-compliance of notice u/s 133(6) - failure on Assessee's part to furnish certain details as were sought by the A.O vide his notice issued under Sec.133(6) - HELD THAT:- As is discernible from the order passed by the Jt. CIT, Mumbai, u/s 272A(2)(c), dated 30.12.2014, we find that the assessee in reply to the notice u/s 133(6), dated 19.12.2013, had declined the ownership of any bank account with HSBC, Geneva, and thus for the said specific reason had refused to sign the consent waiver form.
Accordingly, the non- signing of the consent waiver form by the assessee was specifically backed by a reason given by the assessee, which in our considered view cannot be construed as a non-compliance of the notice issued under Sec.133(6) - In fact, there is nothing discernible from the records which could persuade us to conclude that any specific information/details as were called for by the A.O by his notice issued under Sec. 133(6), had not been furnished by the assessee. Be that as it may, we find that involving identical facts penalty u/s 272A(2)(c) was also imposed in the case of the father of the assessee viz. Shri Kanaiyalal B. Shah, which however was thereafter vacated by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal
We are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the imposition/sustaining of the penalty under Sec. 272A(2)(c) by the lower authorities. In the backdrop of our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view that the penalty imposed by the Jt. CIT under Sec. 272A(2)(c) is not justified - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (12) TMI 610
TDS u/s 194H or 194J - Short deduction of TDS - commission payment - HELD THAT:- Assessee has filed complete details before the Ld.CIT(A), including agreement between the parties, as per which the modus operandi of the assesses to sale of goods has been explained, as per which the assessee sales goods to stockiest and raises invoices and collets applicable excise duty and VAT. Further, the title in the goods is transferred to the stockiest, at the time of delivery.
Arrangements between the assessee and the stockiest for sale of goods is in the nature of principal to principal basis, but not in the nature of principal to agent and accordingly, amount paid by the assesee to stockists is not in the nature of commission, which is liable for TDS u/s 194H. CIT(A) after considering relevant submissions of the assesee has rightly deleted additions made by the AO toward short deduction of TDS u/s 201(1) and consequent interest u/s 201(1A) . We do not find any error in findings of the Ld.CIT (A) and hence, we are inclined to uphold the findings of Ld.CIT(A) and dismissed appeal filed by the revenue.
-
2019 (12) TMI 609
Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- CIT-A has allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition in dispute by holding that the amount cannot be taxed as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) in the hands of the assessee company who was not the share holder of the lender company.
CIT(A) further observed that in the assessment year 2010-11 the deemed dividend in dispute was received by the assessee company from M/s Puran Associates Pvt. Ltd. would be taxed in the hands of Sh. Ashok Chand Burman and Mrs. Minnie Burman who are shareholders holding substantial interest in M/s Puran Associates Pvt. Ltd. who holds a substantial interest in the assessee company and are the share holders in both the companies. CIT(A) has rightly directed the Assessing Officer to take necessary action to tax the amount in dispute in the hands of Sh. Ashok Chand Burman and Mrs. Minnie Burman.
No interference is called for in the well reasoned order dated 27.05.2015 passed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority, therefore, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the ground raised by the Revenue.
-
2019 (12) TMI 608
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - notice u/s.148 issued after four years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year - HELD THAT:- AO has not recorded any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for that assessment year. Therefore, the assessee clearly makes out the case. Since the essential condition for reopening the assessment u/s.147 is absent, the reassessment made u/s.147 w.r.s143(3) dated 30.03.2016 is not valid and hence the re-assessment order is quashed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed. Since we have quashed the reassessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s147, the appeal filed by the Revenue has become infructuous and hence dismissed.
-
2019 (12) TMI 607
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Assessee is engaged in providing software development services to its Associated Enterprises (AE) i.e. Sybase Inc. and also engaged in carrying out the distribution of Sybase Inc. products in India thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list.
-
2019 (12) TMI 605
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Non specify the particular charge of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it can be seen that the notice did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) has been taken into account while passing penalty order. In fact, the Assessing Officer proceeded on the basis of concealment of income to the extent of ₹ 63,33,260/- which was confirmed by the appellate authorities i.e. by the CIT(A) as well as by the Tribunal in quantum appeal.
Overall addition of ₹ 1,58,92,460/- has not been taken into account as a concealment by the Revenue authorities. The concealment cannot be in part when the addition was made in totality without any specific limb mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) which is now deleted in part by the appellate authorities. Therefore, this issue is debatable issue. Further, when the notice is not mentioning the concealment or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in case of M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. [2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT] will be applicable in the present case - thus in the present case which limb of Section 271(1)(c) has been invoked by the revenue authorities is not clear penalty cannot be imposed - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
9911796707
