|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 9304 Records
-
2022 (12) TMI 783
Maintainability of revenue appeal against the order of CIT(A) granting relief to assessee - NCLT has declared moratorium u/s 14 of IBC Code in the case of assessee - IBC Code overriding in any other enactment including Income Tax Act - AR has submitted that Hon’ble by Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.against the assessee u/s 7 of the IBC Code and has declared moratorium - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs. Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. [2018 (8) TMI 1775 - SC ORDER]has held that IBC Code will override anything inconsistent in any other enactment including Income Tax Act. When NCLT has declared moratorium u/s 14 of IBC Code in the case of assessee, then there is a complete bar to initiate and continue proceedings against the assessee before any authority. Therefore, in view of the moratorium granted by NCLT, no proceedings against the assessee can continue. In view of the aforesaid facts, the appeal of Revenue deserves to be dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal after the lifting of the moratorium and in accordance with law.
Grounds of appeal filed by Revenue are dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 782
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - AO disallowed 50% of the agricultural income - HELD THAT:- It is a fact on record that though the assessee contested the disallowance before learned Commissioner (Appeals) however, subsequently, it withdrew the appeals. Thus, the aforesaid facts presupposes that the assessee did not have a strong case on merits to contest the disallowance.
Disallowance of Swap charges - Commissioner (Appeals) has given a categorical finding that the assessee did not furnish any evidence to establish whether the nature of Swap charges were disclosed before detection by the Assessing Officer. Since, the assessee has failed to appear before us and adduce any evidence or submission to demonstrate that no case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is made out, it can be safely concluded that the assessee does not have much to say in the matter in its defence. That being the factual position, we do not find any valid reason to interfere with the decision of the Departmental Authorities. Therefore, we uphold imposition of penalty.
Disallowance of depreciation on land - In view of specific directions of Commissioner (Appeals), no interference is called for. Accordingly, we uphold the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals).
Appeal of assessee dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 781
Bogus LTCG - penny stock purchases - genuineness of the claim of exempt income under section 10(38) of the Act in respect of long-term capital gain arising from sale of equity shares - HELD THAT:- As respectfully following the decision of this Tribunal [2022 (10) TMI 728 - ITAT KOLKATA] as well as in the light of ratio laid down in the case of Swati Bajaj & Others [2022 (6) TMI 670 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] find no infirmity in the orders of the ld. CIT(Appeals) holding the alleged LTCG for sale of equity shares as bogus and not eligible to exemptions under section 10(38) of the Act and also confirming the addition of commission expenditure incurred for arranging bogus LTCG and dismiss the appeals of the assesses.
-
2022 (12) TMI 780
Revision u/s 263 - Addition u/s 68 - Assessee has owned up and surrendered the amount of investment in firm as its investment and contribution - HELD THAT- In the absence of any credit in the books of assessee partner, the provisions of Section 68 has no application on which the al legation is based. In such factual matrix, we find merit in defense of the assessee that chargeability of tax with reference to Section 115BBE is not permissible in the present case towards purported undisclosed income declared by the assessee in the course of survey.
As pointed out, the assessee being partner of the firm, claims to have invested the impugned amount in the partnership firm and surrendered as its undisclosed income. CIT in the revisional proceedings could not have invoked Sect ion 68 towards such unexplained investments in the firm in the absence of any credit in the books of assessee per se and the right course, possibly, could be Section 69 of the Act at best for which no case has been made out by the Pr.CIT.
As contended Tribunal cannot uphold the revisional action of the Pr.CIT on a different ground then what is alleged in the revisional proceedings as held in CIT vs. Jagadhri Electric Supply and Industrial Company, [1981 (3) TMI 19 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] - We thus find traction in the contention that where Section 68 as alleged and invoked by the Pr.CIT is not applicable, Section 115BBE could not be triggered by modifying the premise of revisional direct ions. The revisional act ion of the Pr.CIT thus fails on this count also. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 763
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Notice u/s 148-A - Reason to believe - HELD THAT:- Source of information is not relevant. What is relevant is the tangible material against the appellant. The petitioner did not even submit bank statements or the books of accounts.
There is, prima facie, some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The petitioner had not even made an attempt to assert that the material facts relied on in the SCN is erroneous.
In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 762
Deduction u/s 80P(2)(b)(i) - milk procured from member-village societies and marked to the federal Society - whether the appellant was a “primary society” or not for the purpose of Section 80 P(2)(b)(i) ? - whether the appellant is an “Apex Society” or a “Central Society”? - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the petitioner is a Co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983.
The expression “Primary Society” has not been defined in the Income Tax Act, 1961. Only expression - primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank has been defined. The expression “ Primary Society” has not been defined in the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The expression “Primary Society” has been defined in Section 2(21) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983.
Thus, only if the appellant is neither an “Apex Society” or a “Central Society”, as defined above, it will not be entitled to the benefit of the deduction under Section 80 P(2)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
There is no discussion as to whether the petitioner is an “Apex Society” or a “Central Society”. Instead, the case was argued on the strength of the G.O.Ms. No.555 dated 21.3.1980.
Neither the AO nor the Appellate Commissioner or the Appellate Tribunal have examined the status of the appellant from the point of the view of the definition of a “Primary Society” in Section 2(21) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983.
Since the issue as to whether the appellant is an “Apex Society” or a “Central Society” or not has not been examined by any of the lower authority, viz the Assessing Officer, Appellate Commissioner or the Appellate Tribunal, we are forced to interfere with the impugned orders.
We are therefore of the view, the impugned common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have to be set aside and the cases be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examine the issue as to whether the appellant would be “Primary Society” or whether the appellant was an an “Apex Society” or a “Central Society” or not.
We, therefore remit the case back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue in the light of the definition of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1989 and to pass a afresh order in the light of the definition contained in the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1989, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the Assessing Officer. The appellant shall produce documents to substantiate its status before the Assessing Officer.
-
2022 (12) TMI 761
Deemed income relating to certain companies u/s 115JA - amount towards provision for doubtful advance was not added back to the book profit, while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) r/w 147 - whether provisions of bad and doubtful debt cannot be added by the Assessing Officer vehicle computing book profit u/s 115 JA especially in view of the retrospective amendment to the explanation to Section 115 JA with effect from 01.04.1998 substituted by Finance Act, No.2, 2009? - As submitted that explanation to Section 115 JA (ii) has been amended vide finance (2) Act, 2009 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1998 and therefore on this count alone the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal is not sustainable - HELD THAT:- Clause(g) was inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, with effect from 01.04.1998. Similarly, the phrase beginning with “if any amount referred to clauses (a) to (f) is debited to the profit and loss account and as reduced by”, was substituted with the phrase if any amount referred to clauses (a) to (g) is debited to the profit and loss account and as reduced by”.
The above amendment was not considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court when it gave its verdict in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd.[2008 (9) TMI 18 - SUPREME COURT]for the Assessment Year 1997-98. The above amendment vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 was not relevant for the Assessment year 1997-1998 which fell for consideration. The above decision is therefore not relevant. The Tribunal therefore ought to have examined the issue in the light of the inserted Clause (g) to Explanation Sub-Section 2 to Section 115JA of the Act with effect from 1.4.1998 vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 which was relevant for the present case.
Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the case should be remitted back to the Tribunal to reexamine the issue fresh in the light of the above amendment brought to the definition of” Book Profit” by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 with effect from 01.04.1998. Otherwise, the above amendment would be rendered otiose. Therefore, we remit the case back to the Tribunal without answering to the substantial questions of law raised to re-examine the issue afresh in the light of the above observation, leaving all issues open to be canvassed by both the appellant and the respondent.
Considering the fact that the impugned order pertains to the Assessment Year 1998-99, the Tribunal may endeavour to pass a final order in the denovo proceeding within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2022 (12) TMI 760
Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Order u/s 148A(d) - denial of natural justice - petitioner to challenge the assumption of jurisdiction by the authorities on the ground that the precondition u/s 149(1)(b) has not been satisfied in this case - short point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order has come to be passed without considering the request for adjournment that has been filed by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- It is incumbent upon the authority to have either accepted the same, in which case, time sought ought to have been granted, or to put the petitioner to notice that the officer is rejecting the request. Neither of this has been done and the impugned order has come to be passed unilaterally on 29.03.2022 itself. On this one ground, the impugned order stands vitiated.
It is also the attempt of the petitioner to challenge the assumption of jurisdiction by the authorities on the ground that the precondition u/s 149(1)(b) has not been satisfied in this case. This is a question of fact that the petitioner will have to establish before the authorities and thus the Court says nothing further on this score.
In view of the violation of principles of natural justice, order dated 29.03.2022 is set aside. The petitioner is granted two (2) weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order to file its reply, for which purpose, the portal shall be enabled.
On receipt of reply from the petitioner, the time frame set out u/s 148A(d) will stand triggered and the officer will decide on the basis of the materials available on record including the reply of the assessee whether or not it is a fit case to issue notice u/s 148 by passing a speaking order with the previous approval of the specified authority.
It is made clear that if no response is filed by the petitioner within a time stipulated above, for which the liberty has been granted under this order, the impugned order will stand revived unilaterally and all consequences will flow from the same.
-
2022 (12) TMI 759
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure u/s 37 - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal has opined, that Explanation 2 inserted in Section 37(1) was prospective in nature, and therefore was not applicable in the assessment years in issue.
It is required to be noticed, that Explanation 2 was inserted in Section 37 via Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 01.04.2015. Furthermore, what emerged during the course of the hearing was, that the memorandum which was published along with Finance (No.2) Bill 2014 clearly indicated that the amendment would take effect from 01.04.2015 and, accordingly, would apply in relation to assessment year 2015-2016 and the subsequent years.
If there was any doubt, the same has been removed both by the memorandum issued along with the Finance Bill, as well as the aforementioned circular issued by the CBDT.
It is well established that circulars are binding on the revenue. [See: Catholic Syrian Bank [2012 (2) TMI 262 - SUPREME COURT]]
Therefore, for the appellant/revenue to contend in the aforementioned appeals, that the Tribunal had erred in law in sustaining the deduction claimed by the respondents/assessees u/s 37(1) of the Act is an argument, which cannot be accepted.
Accordingly, the question of law is decided against the appellant/revenue and in favour of the respondents/assessees.
-
2022 (12) TMI 758
Refund claim - time limit for processing a return under 149(1) - Revenue states that since Section 149(1) of the Act itself provides nine months period which is to expire only on 91st December, 2022, no mandamus can be issued in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and, therefore, the Petitioner does not have any right to seek the processing of its return before the said period at this stage - HELD THAT:- While it may be true that Section 149(1) of the Act does prescribe a period of nine months for the Assessing Officer (A.O.) to process the return filed by an assessee under Section 199(1), yet in our opinion the limit so prescribed is an outer limit, which does not in any manner prevent the A.O. from processing the case of the Petitioner at an earlier date.
A.O. must come out with reasons, as to why the case of the Petitioner has not been processed, notwithstanding the fact that the period which is available to him is yet to expire on 91st December, 2022. We are making this observation considering the anxiety of the Petitioner assessee that as against the tax liability of only Rs.2,17,80,008 /-, an amount of Rs.19,70,78,266/- is lying with the Revenue, out of which according to the Petitioner, an amount of Rs.17,52,98,260/- is due and payable to it as refund.
Let an affidavit be filed by Respondent No. 9 Director of Income Tax, Centralised Processing Centre, Bengaluru giving reasons as to the date the return was filed by the Petitioner assessee and whether the same is under process or not, and if not, the reasons thereof.
-
2022 (12) TMI 757
Revision u/s 263 - cash as deposited into the bank account subsequent to announcement of demonetization - HELD THAT:- We find from the assessment order that the AO has verified bank account statements, VAT returns, audit report with final accounts schedules and has confirmed that the assessee has explained the cash deposits made in the bank account to the satisfaction of the Ld. AO. I
In these circumstances of the case, we find that the Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act treating the order of the Ld. AO as erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We therefore are inclined to quash the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed U/s. 263 of the Act thereby upholding the order of the Ld. AO. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 756
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - default claiming deduction u/s 80IC claimed as assessee had not filed 10CCB in support of the claim during the course of assessment proceeding - HELD THAT:- We are unable to find any such document on record which could show that this issue regarding deduction of claim u/s 80IC of the Act before the AO was examined.
PCIT has rightly held that the order of the ld. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT setting aside the assessment order and directing the AO to frame the assessment afresh after considering the observations made in the impugned order. Thus the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 755
Allowability/allowable of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) - interest income earned on the investments held with other co-operative society - whether the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P for the interest earned on fixed deposits and recurring deposits held with Burdwan Central Co-operative Bank Ltd? - HELD THAT:- As far as section 80P(4) of the Act, it only provides that provisions of section 80P shall not be applied in relation to any cooperative bank other than agricultural credit society or any agricultural rural bank. In simple words such cooperative Bank cannot claim deduction u/s.80P(2) & 80P(3) of the Act. Since the assessee is not a cooperative bank, but a Primary Agricultural Credit Society therefore, provisions of section 80P(4) of the Act is not applicable and thus, it is entitled to deduction u/s. 80P of the Act to the extent allowable as per relevant provisions.
Now the alleged interest income is earned from idle funds invested in the bank and as far as deduction u/s. 80P(2)(i) is concerned, which refers to income earned from carrying on banking business or providing credit facilities to its members, thus find that the alleged interest income is not earned by the assessee from its members and therefore, not eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(i) of the Act.
On going through the provisions of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act the co-operative society is eligible for deduction of income in respect of any income by way of interest or dividends derived from its investments with any other co-operative society, Now the assessee has earned interest income from Burdwan Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Though the Burdwan Central Co-operative Bank Ltd is having license under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 to carry on Banking Business, but basically it is a cooperative society, which has been allowed to do banking business under the said Banking Regulation Act, 1949.
Section 80P(2)(d) only refers to word ‘co-operative society’ and it has not been specifically mentioned under the said provisions of the Act that investments made in cooperative banks are to be excluded. In my humble understanding since the cooperative banks are basically co-operative societies only therefore, the words ‘cooperative society’ mentioned in Sec. 80P(2)(d) includes these cooperative societies also which are carrying on banking business as cooperative banks.
Therefore, since the assessee has earned interest from other cooperative society, which in this case is a cooperative bank, is eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d), therefore, reverse the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and allow the sole issue raised by the assessee. Thus, the effective grounds on merits raised by the assessee are allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 754
Revision u/s 263 - Unexplained source of cash investment made by the assessee in company where the assessee is also a partner - unexplained cash credits u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- Regarding the first issue, in the 263 proceedings itself, the principal CIT accepted the assessee’s contention and held that so far as the issue related to increase in investment in the partnership firm by the assessee is concerned, the explanation of the assessee that a similar amount on the same date was withdrawn from another partnership firm was invested in M/s D Jewel was accepted by Principal CIT.
Disallowance of interest in relation to exempt income - As from the records we know observe that so far as the issue relating to disallowance of interest in relation to exempt income is concerned, we observe that in the notice dated 13-12-2017 issued by the AO the issue of disallowance of interest for earning exempt income was specifically raised at page 2 of the said notice.
In response to the same the assessee had filed reply dated 20-12-2017 in which assessee filed an explanation in response to the same - balance sheet of the assessee as on 31st March, 2015 shows that the assessee has own capital of ₹ 5.26 crores at its disposal i.e. the assessee has substantial interest-free funds available with it. Further, we also observe that in the assessment order the AO has discussed the aspect of addition under section 14A and has also made disallowance in respect of the same.
We observe that this is not a case where there was an omission on part of the AO to examine this aspect of disallowance of 14A/ 36(1)(iii) of the Act at all. The AO had put a specific question before the assessee during the course of assessment and taken his reply on record. Further the assessing Officer had also discussed this aspect as part of assessment order.
This is not a case where no enquiry has been made by the assessee officer during the course of assessment proceedings. It is also not the case of the Pr. CIT that the AO failed to apply his mind to the issues on hand or he had omitted to make enquiries altogether or had taken a view which was not legally plausible in the instant facts. As held by various Courts, Principal CIT cannot in 263 proceedings set aside an assessment order merely because he has different opinion in the matter. In our view, s 263 of the Act does not visualise a case of substitution of the judgment of the Principal CIT for that of the AO who passed the order unless the decision is held to be wholly erroneous.
Now on the issue that the AO passed a cryptic order and did not discuss in detail regarding assessee’s submissions on various queries raised vide the various notices, in our view it is a well settled position of law that if from the assessment records, it is evident that the AO has made due enquiries in response to which assessee has filed its submissions, then even if the assessment order does not discuss all aspects in detail with regards to claim of the assessee, it cannot be held that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The above proposition has been upheld in the case of CIT v. Reliance Communication [2016 (4) TMI 173 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], Smt. Anupama Bharat Gupta [2021 (4) TMI 1000 - ITAT AHMEDABAD], Goyal Private Family Specific Trust [1987 (10) TMI 43 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], CIT v. Mahendra Kumar Bansal [2007 (7) TMI 149 - HIGH COURT, ALLAHABAD] - We thus find no error in the order of Ld. AO so as to justify initiation of 263 proceedings by the Ld. Pr. CIT. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 753
Addition u/s 56(2) - method of valuation adopted by the assessee which is in conformity with the Rules specified under 11UA - determination of the valuation under DCF method - AO has rejected the valuation under DCF method solely on the ground that the actual performance did not match the projections - contention of the Ld. DR relying on the book value adopted by the Ld. AO cannot be accepted because as per section 56(2) of the Act, the assessee has option to use either the fair market value determined as per Net Asset Value or the value determined as per the DCF method - HELD THAT:- The determination of the valuation under DCF method was carried by the valuers on the basis of information or material available on the date of valuation and the projections of the revenue provided by the management. The methodology adopted by the assessee applying the DCF method is a recognized and accepted method.
In our opinion the valuation under DCF method is intrinsically based on the projections and based on the potential value of the future business. These assumptions can undergo changes for a period of time. The Ld. DR also has not demonstrated that the methodology adopted by the assessee is not correct but simply the Ld. AO rejected the valuation as it does not match with the actual results. Various Courts have held that the valuation of shares is not an exact science and therefore has to be done with some basic presumptions prevailing on the date of valuation.
As decided in Cinestaan Entertainment (P) Ltd [2021 (3) TMI 239 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Assessee had adopted DCF method to value its shares and the Revenue is unable to demonstrate that the methodology adopted by the assessee is not correct; AO has simply rejected the valuation of the assessee on the ground that performance did not match projections and failed to provide any alternate fair value of shares; Tribunal was therefore justified in deleting the addition made U/s. 56(2)(viib).
Judicially following the above legal precedent, we are inclined to uphold the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.
-
2022 (12) TMI 752
Deduction u/s 80P - intimation issued u/s. 143(1) - Disallowance of deduction as assessee-society had filed its return of income belatedly, i.e., beyond the “due date” specified u/s.139(1) - scope of pre-amended Section 143(1)(a)(v) and post amendment - HELD THAT:- As stated by the Ld. AR, and, rightly so, the amendment in the machinery proviso i.e. Section 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act rendering the same as workable to disallow any deduction claimed by the assessee under Chapter VIA in a case return of income is furnished by him beyond the “due date” specified in sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Act was made available only vide the Finance Act, 2021, w.e.f. 01.04.2021 i.e. from A.Y.2021-22 onwards.
We concur with the claim of the Ld. AR that as the pre-amended Section 143(1)(a)(v) jeopardized the allowability of an assessee’s claim for deduction only qua those claimed under Section 10A, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or 80-IE of the Act, and Section 143(1)(a)(v) was only post-amendment that was made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 been made compatible, and in fact workable, to facilitate a disallowance contemplated u/s.80P w.e.f. A.Y.2021-22, therefore, it is beyond comprehension that as to how any such adjustment could have been made by the CPC, Bengaluru vide an intimation issued u/s.143(1) of the Act, dated 25.06.2019 for the year under consideration, i.e., A.Y.2018-19.
Thus find favour with the claim of the Ld. AR that as the CPC, Bengaluru had clearly traversed or, in fact exceeded its jurisdiction for disallowing u/s.143(1)(a)(v) the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.80P de hors any power vested with it at the relevant point of time, thus, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be vacated. Accordingly, set-aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and vacate the disallowance of the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.80P made by the A.O. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 751
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - taxation being anonymous donation received in cash u/s 115BBC - Assessee is an AOP for the impugned assessment year, but not a charitable trust - difference in recording of reasons for revision - whether the assessment order passed by the learned assessing officer, though holding that an anonymous donation is chargeable to tax u/s 115BBC of the act, can he set off the deficit claimed by the trust - HELD THAT:- In the income and expenditure account interest on fixed deposit was included which was reduced from the business income and offered to tax as interest on fixed deposit Under the head income from other sources. Accordingly, the net income was offered at rupees nil. However, in the end of the computation statement.
It claimed the carry forward of the depreciation however, did not claim the carry forward of the losses. Thus according to the computation, the assessee has carried forward the depreciation comprising of depreciation for assessment year 2011 – 12 and pertaining to assessment year 2010 – 11 and a business loss pertaining to assessment year 2009 – 10.
This is so because the due date of filing of the return of income was 30 September 2011 whereas the assessee filed its return of income only on 17/4/2012. Therefore, as per the assessee, the carry forward of losses is not allowable. The learned assessing officer has started. The computation of total income by showing the deficit of ₹ 5,30,22,672 and made an addition thereto of any anonymous donation of ₹ 55,204,903. There is no error in the computation because, the losses can be set-off for the same assessment year, even if the return of income is filed late. Therefore, to that extent. There is no error in the order of the learned AO.
According to the provisions of Section 115BBC, on anonymous donation tax is required to be charged at the rate of 30% subject to certain deductions. The learned CIT did not invoke the provisions of Section 263 of the act for this reason. The only reason stated by the PCIT is that the learned assessing officer has granted set off deficit of the assessee trust against the anonymous donation. We are of the view that both these things are different. One is the manner of computation of total income and 2nd is manner of chargeability of tax on the total income. The 2nd aspect is not at all a reason stated by the ld CIT for upsetting the order of the learned AO.
We do not find any reason to uphold the order of the learned PCIT passed u/s 263 of the act as there is no error which is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue pointed out in his order dated 22/3/2021. Hence same cannot be sustained and therefore, quashed. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 750
Unexplained cash credits u/s 68 - amount of cash deposited by the assessee in his bank account during the demonetization period - nature and source of the cash deposits being proceeds arising out of cash sales etc. was evident from the entries in the audited books of accounts of the assessee - HELD THAT:- AO neither brought any material on record to establish that the sale bills are bogus nor provided any evidence that such sales are bogus. It is also an open fact that the demonetization of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/-note was declared by the Hon’ble Prime Minister at 8 PM on 8-11-2016 and after this announcement the persons reached the jewellery shop to buy jewellery in exchange of notes. Thus all such scenario indicates that the assessee had duly substantiated its claim from the documentary evidences and also with the facts.
As also observed from the assessment order that the AO had not rejected the books of account of the assesee as no contrary material was available with him to reject the books of account of the assessee. As regards the addition made by the AO by applying the provisions of Section 68 it is noted that provisions of Section 68 are not applicable on the sale transactions recorded in the books of accounts as sales are already part of the income which is already credited in P&L account.
There is no occasion to consider the same as income of the assessee by invoking the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. In view of the above deliberations and case laws relied upon by both the parties, we find that the AO was not justified in making an addition u/s 68 of the Act which has rightly been deleted the ld. CIT(A) and we concur with his findings. Thus the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 749
Late fee penalty u/s 234E - late filing of TDS statements - order u/s 200A - HELD THAT:- Revenue has not brought to my notice any other binding precedence in favour of the Revenue. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio of decision of Division Bench of this Tribunal [2022 (3) TMI 343 - ITAT DELHI] hereby direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned penalty. This finding would also apply to other appeals of this bunch.
-
2022 (12) TMI 748
Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - benefit of exemption u/s.5(1)(c) r.w.s 6 - HELD THAT:- Assessee individual is a non-resident Indian and the facts clearly show that the return has been filed with mistakes. These mistakes can admittedly be rectified by filing a rectification application. The rectification application admittedly is not being considered on account of the limitation provided u/s.154(7) - In view of the submissions made by both the sides and considering the Circular No.4 of 2012 dated 20.6.2012 issued by the CBDT, the issues in its appeal are restored to the file of the AO for readjudication of the rectification application on merits.
AO is at liberty to examine whether the assessee was NRI during the relevant point of time and whether he is entitled to the benefit of exemption u/s 5(1)(c) r.w.s 6 of the Act. If it is found that the claim of the assessee is correct, then, the AO is to proceed to decide the rectification application on merits in accordance with the provisions of section 5(1)(c) r.w.s 6 of the Act. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
............
|
9911796707
