|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 9304 Records
-
2022 (12) TMI 1346
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Addition by way of Trading addition as (undisclosed profit on sales out of books) and addition made u/s 69A - HELD THAT:- We do not have the benefit of examination of the factual and legal submissions of the assessee side by the Assessing Officer and by the learned CIT(A). Further, we find that assessee has expressed the grievance that reasonable opportunities were not provided by the learned CIT(A) and by the AO which was not disputed by the learned Sr. DR for Revenue.
We set aside the impugned appellate order dated 29/03/2016 of the learned CIT(A) and we restore all the issues in dispute in the present appeal before us, to the file of the AO, with the direction to pass denovo order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. All the grounds of appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with aforesaid directions. Assessee appeal is partly allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1345
Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Unexplained source of the cash deposits in the bank accounts - HELD THAT:- It is evident, in the year under consideration, the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs.58,86,000 in two bank accounts standing in his name. It is a fact on record that the assessee did not file any return of income u/s 139(1). The fact relating to cash deposit made by the assessee came to the notice of the Assessing Officer from the individual transaction statement available with the department. Thus, in absence of any return of income filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer had no other information to suggest that the cash deposits reflected in the individual transaction statement has been offered to tax by the assessee. Therefore, while reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer had tangible material in his possession to form belief that income has escaped assessment. Therefore, he has validly initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act.
Validity of approval granted under Section 151 - We do not find any deficiency in such approval. Therefore, no merit in ground no.2. Accordingly, the ground is dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1344
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - addition were made u/s 69 and 69C - AP applied the rate of tax u/s 115BBE @30% instead of @60% - HELD THAT:- We find that in the present case, the AO has determined the assessee’s income under section 69C of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act and while determining the rate of tax, has been apparently guided by the pre-amended law where the rate of tax was 30% as against rate of tax of 60% as per the amended law which was applicable for the impugned assessment year 2017-18. Therefore, we find that the issue is not really about the applicability of section 115BBE rather the real issue is about the rate of tax as per section 115BBE - Where the ld PCIT has stated that the AO has not applied the rate of tax as per section 115BBE, what he meant was rate of tax of 60% given that the AO has already applied rate of tax of 30% as so submitted by the assessee. It is not the case of the assessee that the amended law is not applicable in its facts and circumstances of the case for the impugned assessment year 2017-18. It is therefore a case where the AO has erred in not applying the rate of tax as per the amended law as applicable for the impugned assessment year and the order so passed is therefore rightly held by the ld PCIT as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
We therefore didn’t find any justifiable basis to interfere with the order of the ld PCIT who has rightly exercise his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by setting aside the order of the AO to the extent of applying the rate of tax as per amended Section 115BBE for the impugned assessment year on the quantum of additions made and sustained u/s 69C of the Act. We sustain the order of the Ld. PCIT(C) in light of aforesaid directions and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1343
Deduction u/s 54 - deemed investment in the proposed flat - HELD THAT:- Upon perusal of above assessment orders, it could thus be seen that Ld. AO has accepted the declared sale consideration in case of Smt. Mini Pillai whereas it has rejected the sale consideration in the case of Smt. Sharda Menon. Both the assessment, prima-facie, has attained finality. Therefore, considering the same, the adoption of value of Rs.182.76 Lacs in the case of assessee before us stand confirmed. The corresponding grounds thus raised stand dismissed.
Having said so, the present assessee would logically be eligible to claim deduction u/s 54 for deemed investment in the proposed flat to the extent of Rs.107.76 Lacs as similar deduction has been granted to both the other co-owners also. Regarding the revenue’s plea that deduction u/s 54 was not to be granted for more than one property, we find that the ratio of decision of CIT V/s Gumanmal Jain [2017 (3) TMI 394 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] would apply. This decision considers catena of judicial decisions as well as amendment made by Finance Act, 2014 and finally held that the assessee would be eligible to claim deduction for more than one property. Following the same, Ld. AO is directed to adopt sale consideration and grant additional deduction u/s 54- We order so. The corresponding ground stand allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1342
Denying deduction u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B - amount deposited towards employees contribution to provident fund - HELD THAT:- As the facts and the issue involved in the aforesaid order of the Tribunal in the case of Ind Synergy Lyd. [2022 (4) TMI 36 - ITAT RAIPUR] remains the same as are there before us in the case of the present assessee, therefore, we respectfully follow the same. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations set-aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and direct the AO to vacate the disallowance made by him u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act qua the delayed deposit of the employees share of contribution of EPF - Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1323
Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - Difference of MAT credit not allowed to the assessee as related to surcharge and cess components of the MAT taxes paid in earlier years - AO had computed the MAT credit allowable to the assessee as per provision of section 115JAA(5) of the Act only considering the normal tax components and excluded surcharge and cess from the same - HELD THAT:- We have noted that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal on the ground that there was no representation made by the assessee before him. Assessee has pointed out that on the last date of hearing, he did file written submissions to the ld.CIT(A). Be that so, we have noted the contentions of the ld.counsel for the assessee on merit also, and we find that rectification application filed by the assessee is to the effect that the assessee be allowed benefit of MAT credit as per section 115JAA(5) of the Act by including surcharge and cess in the tax credit so calculated. Precisely, this is the only issue on which the assessee has sought rectification of the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act.
We find merit in the contentions of the ld.counsel for the assessee. In a series of the decisions, the Hon’ble High Courts and the ITAT have held that the tax credit allowable under section 115JAA of the Act is including surcharge and cess components of tax thereon.
Denial of tax credit u/s 115JAA of the Act to the extent of surcharge and cess components in the same, we agree with the ld.counsel for the assessee, is a mistake apparent from the record and rectification sought to this extent is therefore upheld. The rectification application filed by the assessee is therefore directed to be allowed, and adjustment of tax credit as claimed by the assessee is directed to be granted. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1322
Deduction u/s 80P - assessee’s status as to whether it is a cooperative bank or a credit cooperative society as per the Revenue’s and assessee’s arguments, respectively - HELD THAT:- There could be hardly any dispute that hon’ble apex court’s recent landmark decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd [2021 (1) TMI 488 - SUPREME COURT] has settled the issue that assessee’s registration under the respective cooperative law itself forms the decisive factor. This assessee is further found registered as credit cooperative society only. I thus reject the Revenue’s instant arguments to this effect.
Assessee had deposited its surplus in cooperative banks and derived interest therefrom which has been claimed as eligible for section 80P deduction - As decided in BELGAUM COAL & COKE CONSUMER COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION LTD. [2021 (11) TMI 1121 - ITAT PANAJI]we hold that the interest income earned by the appellant society on investment made with the cooperative bank which are also cooperative societies is exempt from the Income Tax Act u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Therefore, we hold that the lower authorities was not justified in denying the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the same as deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) - Assessee appeal is allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1321
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - reason to believe - Change of opinion - proportionate interest attributable to the interest free advances made by the assessee to its related parties - HELD THAT:- As all the material papers which the learned AO made a basis to reopen the concluded assessment were available with the learned Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment itself. From the record is also evident that the learned Assessing Officer noticed from the P&L Account and Balance Sheet that during the year the assessee incurred interest expenditure on long-term borrowings and the amount of interest free advances to related parties, by specifically asking the assessee to furnish the information relating to the loans and advances where no interest was charged/chargeable. It is only after the assessee furnished the information, the assessment was complete after scrutiny considering the income only under “house property” and “other sources”, and loss from business was not allowed observing that as there remains no business income/activity, the expenditure is not allowed to be set of against income computed under other heads.
We are of the considered opinion that the original assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was concluded after noticing all the relevant facts which forms basis for issuance of the notice under section 148 of the Act, and, therefore, the opinion formed by the learned Assessing Officer on subsequent perusal of the record is nothing but change of opinion and in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Kelvinator of India Ltd (2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] and Techspan India (2018 (4) TMI 1376 - SUPREME COURT] such a course is impermissible. - Decided against revenue.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1320
Deduction u/s 54B - deduction denied as agricultural land in which the capital gain was invested was purchased in the name of assessee’s wife - HELD THAT:- This above view, is unsustainable. Deduction under Section 54B/54F of the Act is available in cases where investments are made in property purchased in the name of wife. Therefore, following the ratio laid down in these decisions Laxmi Narayan [2017 (11) TMI 1622 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JAIPUR], Kamal Wahal [2013 (1) TMI 401 - DELHI HIGH COURT], Natarajan [2006 (2) TMI 136 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and Ravinder Kumar Arora [2011 (9) TMI 343 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
Thus hold that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 54B of the Act. Accordingly, direct the AO to allow deduction under Section 54B of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1319
Estimation of income of the assessee at 10% of the administrative expenses and export expenses - HELD THAT:- As it is noticed that the issue is squarely covered in the group concern of the assessee being in the case of M/s. Serajuddin & Co. [2022 (10) TMI 1139 - ITAT CUTTACK] and in the case of Aliza International Pvt Ltd. [2022 (10) TMI 1141 - ITAT CUTTACK] respectfully following the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal the disallowance as confirmed by the ld CIT(A) at 10% stands reduced to 5%.
Disallowance of auxiliary service addition - As it is noticed that this issue has already been considered in [2022 (10) TMI 1141 - ITAT CUTTACK]. and we have reduced the said disallowance made from 10% to 5%, Ground No.3 of the revenue stands dismissed.
Direction of the ld CIT(A) in adopting the total income before depreciation - HELD THAT:- As it is noticed that the ld CIT(A) has reduced the total income assessed by the AO by considering the remand report as filed by the AO and as it is noticed that the said remand report has also been extracted by the ld CIT(A) in his order, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld CIT(A) on this issue. Ground Nos.4 & 5 of the revenue stand dismissed
Deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the provisions of section 2(22)(e) clearly shows that the word used is “on behalf, or for the individual benefit, of any such shareholder”. Thus, the deemed dividend, if at all, can be assessed is to be assessed in the hands of the shareholder on whose behalf or individual benefit, the loan has been given. In the present case, the assessee is not the shareholder of M/s. Aliza International Pvt Ltd., which would attract the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the findings of the ld CIT(A) is on right footing and does not call for any interference. Ground No.6 of the revenue stands dismissed.
Addition of other income - As submitted CIT(A) did not add the same on the ground that the net profit as shown by the assessee was inclusive of the said amount of other income - HELD THAT:- As it is noticed that the ld CIT(A) has taken into consideration the fact that the said other income has already been considered while determining the net profit as per the accounts which are audited u/s.44AB, we are of the view that no addition of the said amount is called for. Consequently, Ground No.7 of the revenue stands dismissed.
Disallowance of peripheral development expenses and maintenance expenses - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Aliza International Pvt Ltd. [2022 (10) TMI 1141 - ITAT CUTTACK] the addition as made by the AO and confirmed by the ld CIT(A) in respect of peripheral development expenses and maintenance expenses stands deleted.
Penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) - As submitted by ld AR that the search in the case of the assessee took place on 28.5.2008 and the assessment year 2009-10 was the specified period and for the purpose of levying the penalty, if at all, was u/s.271AAA and not u/s.271(1)(c) - HELD THAT:- The penalty leviable u/s.271AAA is 10% of the concealed income whereas under section 271(1)(c), the penalty is leviable at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. A perusal of the order of the Assessing officer shows that the AO has levied penalty at 100% of tax sought to be evaded. Consequently, the order passed by the AO cannot be held as typographical error. In regard to levy of penalty u/s.271AAA assessment year 2009-10 is the specified year in respect of the assessee, as the search took place on 28.5.2008. Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of S.M.Enterprises [2022 (11) TMI 275 - ITAT CUTTACK] penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) stands deleted.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1318
Deduction u/s 80P - interest income from deposits made in cooperative banks - HELD THAT:- As relying on Belgaum Coal & Coke Consumer Cooperative Association Ltd [2021 (11) TMI 1121 - ITAT PANAJI] we hold that the interest income earned by the appellant society on investment made with the cooperative bank which are also cooperative societies is exempt from the Income Tax Act u/s 80P(2)(d) - Therefore, we hold that the lower authorities was not justified in denying the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the same as deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) - Appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1317
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - 2nd reassessment has been initiated even when the 1st assessment was due to be completed - two assessment orders have been passed by two different AO’s - unexplained investment u/s 69A on account of purchase of shares - HELD THAT:- In this case it is noted that two assessment orders have been passed by two different AO’s vide order dated 25-07-2019 and 8-12-2019 respectively. In the first assessment order dated 25-07-2019, the contentions of the assessee were accepted by the AO after due verification of the material on record. In the second assessment order dated 8-12-2019 u/s 144/147 of the Act, the AO made additions of Rs.3,41,360/- and Rs.3,59,000/- and added the same in the return of the assessee for the reason that the assessee did not submit the reply to the show cause notice issued by the new incumbent. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions against the order of the AO dated 8-12-2019 by observing that ‘’it is clear that the 2nd assessment order cannot stand the test of appeal and hence is annulled. The appeal of the assessee is allowed’’. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, we concur with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Thus the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1316
Interest earned on deposit - principle of mutuality - assessee being an association for the residents of Sunny Park Apartment had to make deposit with CESC Ltd. for the purpose of power connection - Assessee contended that it was mandatory for the association to deposit with CESC Ltd. for supply of power and therefore, principle of mutuality should be applied. On the other hand, we notice that CIT(A) did not accept this contention holding that on the alleged sum, principle of mutuality will not apply and it is taxable under the head “income from other sources” - HELD THAT:- On going through the submissions made by assessee as well as the decision of Manipal Centre Apartment Owners Association [2013 (9) TMI 1293 - ITAT BANGALORE]. We are inclined to hold that as the assessee, an association of owners of Sunny Park Apartment is required to provide facilities and other amenities to the owners/occupants of the apartments and therefore, is required to make deposit with CESC Ltd. for availing electricity service connection. The interest earned on such deposit has a clear and direct nexus to the expenditure incurred in the form of electricity consumption charges and therefore, the same is allowable for set off against the expenditure and the principle of mutuality does apply on the alleged sum of interest earned on deposit with CESC Ltd.
Thus, the finding of ld. CIT(A) is reversed and the alleged addition is deleted. Hence, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1315
Deduction u/s 80IB - Necessity to undergo manufacturing process - assessee is not engaged in the manufacturing process, not employed workers and not used machinery, therefore assessees’ claim in respect of 80IB was rejected - HELD THAT:- This issue under consideration is squarely covered in favour of assessee in assessee’s own case by the judgment of the Division Bench[2022 (8) TMI 1328 - ITAT SURAT] as held assessee received orders from customers to supply the goods to them and the assessee executed these orders by way of manufacturing done by M/s Nangalwala Chemical Industries of Alwar, under the direct supervision of one of the partners. The assessee applies own technology, standard process, own raw material, own quality control/check, and the goods are manufactured as per the specification given by customers. Based on these facts and circumstances, we note that assessee is entitled to get deduction under section 80-IB - Decided in favour of assessee.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - HELD THAT:- Since, we have deleted the penalty as the quantum addition was deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, therefore, additional ground raised by the assessee becomes infructuous and hence does not require adjudication.
Addition of unsecured loan taken - AR failed to put up the details of confirmation and creditworthiness of these parties, however, the contention of ld.counsel for the assessee is that all the confirmations were duly placed on record of the ld.CIT(A) - HELD THAT:- As decided in [2014 (1) TMI 1240 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] after considering all aspects of the matter, we find that the order of the l;d.CIT(A) is cryptic and, therefore, in the interest of justice, this issue is restored back to the file of ld.CIT(A) to decide it afresh after verifying the details as submitted by the assessee.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1314
Addition u/s 68 on account of alleged unexplained share premium and share capital - HELD THAT:- By respectfully following the ratio laid down in the case of PCIT Vs. Rohtak [2019 (10) TMI 931 - SC ORDER] and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in the argument of the Ld. DR to hold that the assessee has failed to establish the ingredients of Section 68 of the Act.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Export Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (1) TMI 575 - SC ORDER] observed that even if the share capital money is received by the assessee from alleged bogus share holders, whose names are given to the A.O. The Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessment in accordance with law. But cannot regarded undisclosed income of the assessee Company. The present case, the assessee has substantially provided materials to prove the genuineness of the share holders apart from giving the Pan Card, name and ROC details. Therefore, we delete the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground No. 2 of the Assessee is allowed.
Addition u/s 56(2) (viib) on protective basis - valuation arrived by the assessee either DCF Method or NAV Method - assessee has received a premium on issue of shares to various parties - According to the Ld. A.O, the value of the shares issued to the parties are very high in comparison to fair market value of such shares - contention of the Ld. AR that the valuation of the shares has been done as per DCF Method which is prescribed under Rule 11 UA to Income Tax Rules (2)(b) which has been and also certified by the Assessee’s qualified Charted Accountant - HELD THAT:- Valuation Method adopted by the assessee is one of the Methods accepted under law which cannot be disturbed by the Revenue authorities without bringing any contrary material on record to sow that the method adopted by the assessee is incorrect.
CIT (A) has rejected the valuation report of the assessee, by relying on decision of Agro Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (5) TMI 1088 - ITAT DELHI] The decision made in Agro Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has been considered in the case of Cinestan Entertainment (P). Ltd. [2019 (6) TMI 1367 - ITAT DELHI], wherein it is held that the Assessing Officer cannot examined or substitute its own value in place of valuation arrived by the assessee either DCF Method or NAV Method, the commercial expediency has to be seen from the point view of businessman. Further held that if law provides the assessee to get the valuation done from a prescribed expert as per the prescribed method, then the same cannot be rejected because neither the Assessing Officer nor the assessee have been recognized as expert under the law. A.O and CIT(A) has committed an error in rejected the valuation done by the assessee from prescribed expert as per the prescribed method.
Enhancement of income - AR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) enhanced the income without giving a mandatory notice required u/s 250(1) of the Income Tax Act, thus violations of principals of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In our opinion, when the CIT(A) deem it fit to enhance the assessed income, shall give mandatory notice u/s 250(1) of the Act. In the present case, admittedly no such notice issued to the assessee before enhancing the assessed income. Therefore, the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in enhancing the income of the assessee is found to be erroneous. Therefore, Ground No. 4 & 5 of the assessee requires to be allowed.
Disallowance of business expenditure - assessee has not carried on business in the year under consideration - HELD THAT:- The contention of the Ld. AR that the assessee has already set up his business and the same was in operation, the expenditure claimed u/s 37 of the Act. Further submitted that, to claim the business expenditure, the assessee has to be set up the business and it is not mandatory that there should be actual income generated from the business. In our opinion, once the business of the assessee is set up and the expenditure incurred thereafter deserves to be allowed as business expenditure u/s 30 to 38 of the Act. There is no requirement of generation of income from such business activities. The business activity is a continuous process and it cannot be said that as soon as setting up of the business, the income will be generated and should yield income in all years. Being so, we find merit in the argument of the Ld. AR. Therefore, we inclined to allow the Ground of the assessee.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1313
Disallowing the expenses incurred on electricity - manufacturing activities had not taken place - HELD THAT:- As the fact that it was an ongoing business undergoing a lull has been accepted by the AO himself as various other business expenses have been allowed. It is further seen that the aforesaid payments in terms of the bills raised by the Punjab State Electricity Corporation is an evidence of third party evidence which cannot be easily discounted as a self created evidence. The payments have been made is also not in dispute. We further find that statements of two Security Guards in February, 2016 in regard to the factual position of the assessee's business functioning in the year under consideration i.e. 2012-13 assessment year does not have much relevance.
The fact that it has not been confronted to the assessee is also a fact evident on the face of the record. We further find that merely because the Punjab State Electricity Corporation, even to the AO, has failed to respond and provide information u/s. 133(6) is a fact for which the remedy lies with the Revenue.
Assessee has no role to play and cannot be held to be answerable for the lapses of the Corporation. Considering the submissions of the assessee consistently on record wherein it is evident that the assessee tried to keep his business alive and viable and ultimately had to close down, expenses so disallowed in the facts of the present case cannot be sustained. Addition made is directed to be deleted. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1312
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - assessee has opted for Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme by filing Form No.3. Later, the assessee could not pay the balance tax arrears and hence pleaded for recalling the appeal filed by the assessee - HELD THAT:- Objection for the issuance of notice U/s. 148 of the Act and pleaded that the reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed as void ab initio. We find from the records that the assessee has failed to respond to the notices and the Ld. AO has rightly after seeking permission from the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur found that the income has escaped assessment and hence notice U/s.148 was issued to the assessee. AO further observed that the assessee has failed to furnish the return of income for the relevant assessment year inspite of having capital gains. In these circumstances, we find that reopening of assessment proceedings U/s. 147 of the Act is valid in law and hence this ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.
Year of taxability of capital gains - HELD THAT:- Admitted facts are that the development agreement was originally entered into by the assessee on 14/3/2016 in the ratio of 46:54 with the Developer. Consequently, additional 209 sq yds acquired subsequent to execution of the development agreement by way of revocation deed dated 18/5/2016 and added in the supplementary deed dt 18/5/2016 during the AY 2017-18. We find that the supplementary deed is an extension of the original development agreement with the same terms and conditions only with an addition of 209 sq yds. Therefore, in our considered view since the possession of the land has already been granted to the Developer vide the original development agreement entered into on 14/3/2016, the year of chargeability of capital gains in the hands of the assessee shall be AY 2016-17 and not AY 2017-18. We are therefore inclined to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this ground and needs no interference. Accordingly, the Grounds No. 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are dismissed.
Consideration received for the relinquishment of 54% of the land to the Developer - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the assessee has conveyed 54% of the land admeasuring 2579.04 sq yds to the Developer for the purpose of constructing multistoried residential complex at Mangalagiri. The consideration for the part conveyance of the land to the Developer is the receipt of the super built up area including the parking area. Admittedly both the Revenue and the assessee has not disputed the cost per square yard adopted by the Ld. AO. In these circumstances, we find that the consideration for the relinquishment of 54% of the land to the Developer shall be the cost of construction of super built up area including parking area (Rs. 4,59,62,970 + Rs. 61,28,396 = Rs. 5,20,91,366/-) shall be the deemed sale consideration for the purpose of computation of capital gains. We therefore direct the Ld. AO to compute the capital gains adopting the above deemed sale consideration. Accordingly, this ground no. 5 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Claim of expenses like NALA Charges, Property taxes and Deviation Charges - HELD THAT:- The receipt shows that it is paid by the assessee and we find merit in the argument of the Ld. AR that the assessee has to bear the cost of conversion of the agricultural land which would entitle the Developer to construct the multistoried residential building and which was part of the development agreement. We therefore direct the Ld. AO to allow these expenses towards the cost of construction. Further, it is also noticed from the remand report of the Ld. AO that the AO has not objected to the property tax paid by the assessee and hence these expenses incurred by the assessee shall be allowed while computing the cost of construction. With respect to deviation charges, the Ld. AR has submitted in page 53 of the paper book the fine paid of Rs. 31,36,000/- is with respect to set back as per the sanctioned plan in comparison with the completed building plan. These expenses are incurred for the entire building and the claim made by the AR that they should be allowed in the hands of the assessee could not be accepted. We find the deviation has occurred in the construction of the entire building and does not belong exclusively to the assessee. In these circumstances, the cost of deviation charges pertaining to the assessee shall be in proportion to the ratio of the land agreed between the Developer and the assessee as per the development agreement. We therefore direct the Ld. AO to allow 46% of Rs. 31,36,000/- amounting to Rs. 14,42,560/- as deduction from the capital gains for the assessee. Accordingly, this ground No.6 raised by the assessee is partly allowed.
Exemption claimed U/s. 54F - DR submitted that the assessee is having two houses and hence exemption U/s. 54F cannot be allowed in this scenario - HELD THAT:- The assessee has claimed exemption U/s. 54F considering the entire built up area as one residential unit. In our view it cannot be considered as a single residential unit. AO is therefore directed to verify whether the assessee is owning more than one house to claim deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the Ld. AO to verify these facts and afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the deduction U/s. 54F shall be allowed in accordance with law. Accordingly, this ground No.7 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1311
Addition u/s. 56(2)(viib) - rejecting the valuation of shares adopted by the Appellant viz., Cash flow method for issuance of shares for the AY 2015-16 - CIT(A) concurred with the stand of Ld. AO that DCF valuation was not reliable since future cash flows were exaggerated and not supported by any corroborating documentation - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered opinion that though DCF valuation is one of the prescribed methods, however, the valuation should be based on reasonable estimations and assumptions which is missing in the present case. As noted by lower authorities, the valuer has merely adopted the projections made by the management and there was substantial difference in cash flow projections in both the valuation reports itself. The valuation could not be substantiated by the assessee. We also concur that only excess premium exceeding face value of shares could be brought to tax u/s 56(2)(viib). Therefore, the adjudication as done by Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order could not be faulted with. We order so.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1310
CIRP - Demand of income tax - Validity of order of Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) passed u/s 250 - overriding nature and supremacy of the provisions of the Code over any other enactment in case of conflicting provisions by virtue of non obstante clause contained in section 238 of the Code - Assessee is admitted to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) and moratorium under section 14 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has commenced - HELD THAT:- The period of moratorium shall have the effect from the date of such order till the completion of CIRP; or if, during the CIRP period, Hon’ble NCLT approves the resolution plan under section 31(1) or passes an order for liquidation of corporate debtor under section 33 of the Code, moratorium shall cease to have effect on date of such order. As noted above, it has been admitted that the moratorium period has commenced in the present case - Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. v/s Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (12) TMI 1107 - SUPREME COURT]held that even arbitration proceedings cannot be initiated after imposition of the moratorium under section 14(1)(a) has come into effect and it is non est in law and could not have been allowed to continue.
MONNET ISPAT AND ENERGY LTD. [2018 (8) TMI 1775 - SC ORDER] upheld the overriding nature and supremacy of the provisions of the Code over any other enactment in case of conflicting provisions by virtue of non obstante clause contained in section 238 of the Code. Thus, we are of the considered view that the present cross-appeals are a continuation of pending Suit against the Corporate Debtor, which is prohibited under section 14 of the Code. It is further pertinent to note that under section 178(6) of the Act, as amended w.e.f. 01/11/2016, the Code shall have overriding effect.
Appeal by the assessee have been filed by the Managing Director of the assessee company, which after initiation of CIRP has become functus officio. We further find that the Interim Resolution Professional has not been impleaded as a party in the present cross-appeals before us by filing revised Form No. 36. Once the insolvency proceedings commenced under the Code, all the litigations are to be pursued by Interim Resolution Professional appointed by the Committee of Creditors. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the present cross-appeals, in the current form, are not maintainable.
We dismiss the present appeals with a liberty that upon completion of the moratorium period, if it is so decided, the assessee and the Revenue may seek recall of this order by impleading Managing Director / Director, representing the new management of the assessee company, or the Official Liquidator, as the case may be.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1309
Addition u/s 68 - Unexplained cash deposits made in the appellant’s bank account - statement of the assessee admitting the income at the time of survey - subsequent retraction made by assessee - as argued AO did not make any inquiries to satisfy himself about the explanation offered by the appellant although making of such inquiries is a condition prerequisite for invoking the provisions of section 68 - HELD THAT:- Retraction by the Director of the assessee - Assessee had admitted to have the entries had in the books of account, receipts and cash deposits in its bank account. Law is fairly settled with respect to the admissions made in the I.T. proceedings. Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act also speaks about the evidentiary value of statements, both oral and documentary, in court proceedings. Admissions play a very important role in the income-tax proceedings, as admissions bound the maker. In the absence of any denial or explanation thereof, an admission is almost conclusive regarding the facts contained therein. They generally dispense with the requirement of adducing further evidence or proof to support a fact. Though section 31 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, yet admissions in the absence of rebuttal may conclude an issue.
Effect of Letter dt.17.01.2017 - Considering the Judgment of hon’ble High Court in the case of Y. Ramachandra Reddy [2015 (5) TMI 429 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] we are of the considered opinion that the subsequent retraction will not come for rescue of the assessee, as neither the retraction dt.17.01.2017 was made before the Assessing Officer / Investigating Wing nor it was made within reasonable time and nor any reasons for retraction of the earlier statements were given. In our view, the letter dt.17.01.2017 was after thought, motivated and against earlier conduct of assessee whereby he had accepted the income of Rs.40 Crore in the earlier statements, affidavit in PMGKY – 2016 and subsequent deposit of part of tax amount of Rs. 1 crore. Further it is not the stand alone statement of the assessee admitting the income at the time of survey rather in the present case the revenue is having other incriminating evidence in the form of 2135 invoices, CFSL evidence of computers, statements of neighbour, statements of other persons denying the purchase of bullion and recovery of KYC documents of 65 customers. In light of the above, the Assessing Officer was right in rejecting the reliance placed by assessee on letter dt.17.01.2017.
Whether the ld.CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition on the basis of statement of Mr. Neel Sunder Tharad recorded by Enforcement Directorate dt.26.12.2016 ? - From the comparison of statement recorded before the Enforcement Directorate u/s 50(2) and (3) of PMLA Act and confession recorded u/s 24 of the Indian Evidence Act by the police make it abundantly clear that in the statement u/s 50(2) and (3) of PMLA Act dt.26.12.2016 which is in the nature of evidence, Mr. Neel Sunder has only provided the names of 5 persons whereas in the statement recorded u/s 24 of Indian Evidence Act by Mr. Neel Sunder while he was in custody after being arrested on 11.01.2017, there is a mention of names of 12 persons with the amounts. The above said crucial aspect has not been examined by the CIT(A) while deleting the addition.
In our view, the ld.CIT(A) has swayed away by the confession extracted from Mr. Neel Sunder while he was in police custody, however, the conclusion of ld.CIT(A) is without any basis, merit and against the settled principle of law.
In view of section 26 of Indian Evidence Act, we are of the opinion that the statement / confession of Mr. Neel Sunder recorded by the police while he was in custody is not admissible in the eye of law. Therefore, the conclusion of ld.CIT(A) that the statement has not been confronted by the Assessing Officer is without any basis.
Authorization given by the appellant to Sri Neel Sunder and his concerns to deposit the amount in the bank account of the appellant were not examined nor contradicted - Undoubtedly, it is not the case of the assessee that efforts were made by the assessee to return the amount to the Mr. Neel Sunder. Apart from the admissibility or otherwise of the confession of Mr. Neel Sunder, another fact that stares at the face of the assessee is that, as per version of the assessee, Mr. Neel Sunder has arranged the customers, money and bullion and made delivery to the customers. This version of the ass is incongruous and against human preponderance, as why Mr. Neel Sunder will approach the assessee to route his clients’ transaction through the assessee. In that way Mr. Neel Sunder could have completed the entire transaction right from procuring to selling the gold to customers and retained the profit himself. It is also not the case of the assessee that Mr. Neel Sunder did not have the bank account in the same Axis Bank where the money was allegedly deposited by him in the account of the assessee. There is no explanation for the redundant routing of the transactions with the assessee if we have to believe Mr. Neel Sunder. This shows that the statement of Mr. Neel Sunder’s statement attributes redundancy to the role of the assessee, which we find difficult to believe.
In our opinion, conduct of the assessee was incomprehensible and abnormal. The assessee either deposited its undisclosed amount or otherwise helped undisclosed, unanimous and unidentifiable persons to convert their undisclosed prohibited currency into bullion after notification of demonetization. In both circumstances, the action of the assessee was not permissible in the eyes of the law. Therefore, the order of Assessing Officer was in accordance with law, and other of ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition was without any merit.
Legal sale of gold with use of prohibited currency /SBNs - SBNs were subsequently received by the assessee and were wrongfully deposited with the bank and thus, the assessee had mischievously and unscrupulously brought the SBNs into the network. In our view, the stand of the Assessing Officer is correct, as he had rightly concluded that no legal sale of gold could have made with use of prohibited currency /SBNs.
Even assuming that, though legally not correct, the transactions are illegal, as opined by the AO, the income needs to be taxed, as the Income tax Act does not differentiate between legal and illegal incomes - The assessee has failed to prove the identity of the creditors, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the creditors. Therefore, the assessee had failed to discharge his onus under section 68 of the Act; hence, the order of the Assessing Officer is required to be restored and the order of the ld.CIT(A) is required to be set aside. We do it accordingly. In the result, we uphold the addition as unexplained credit in the hands of the assessee (Vaishnavi Bullion Private Limited.) - Decided in favour of revenue.
............
|
9911796707
