|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 163527 Records
-
2024 (4) TMI 752
Validity of reopening of assessment - appeals for Assessment Years 2011-2012, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 were pending before the ITAT and as the assessment was getting time barred and to safeguard the interest of the Revenue, the assessment was reopened on 3 issues i.e., 8% profit treating contractor, Proportionate income and Capital gain - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the ITAT has now held against the Revenue. Therefore, the entire basis for reopening has collapsed. The Revenue’s case that an appeal has been filed in this Court challenging the orders passed by the ITAT for Assessment Years 2011-2012, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 will not be of any help because admittedly there is no stay.
As held in Union of India v/s. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. [1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT] the principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities and the order is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent Court. Admittedly, the order of the ITAT, which is challenged in appeal in this Court, has not been suspended. Therefore, the order of the ITAT is certainly binding on the Revenue.
Respondents also submitted that assessment can be opened on the basis of order passed in another assessment year which is a settled position in law. Though we will not enter into a debate with him/Respondents on this aspect, still to issue notice itself the Revenue has to, in the facts of the case, cross the first hurdle of the proviso u/s 147 of the Act and if they do not, as we have observed above, the reopening will be bad in law.
We hereby quash and set aside the impugned notice. Consequently the order on objections also is hereby quashed and set aside.
-
2024 (4) TMI 751
Addition u/s 68 on account of share capital and premium - addition made on absence of identity of the creditors, genuineness and creditworthiness of the entire transaction - ITAT deleted addition - HELD THAT:- Findings recorded by the Tribunal, is not supported by facts. AO has held that the assessee was a Private Limited company which cannot issue shares in the same manner in which Public Limited company does and in so far as creditworthiness of the share subscribers is concerned, there must be positive evidence to show the nature and source of resources of the share subscribers and if the assessee was serious enough to establish his case, it ought to have complied with the notices/letters issued by the Assessing Officer and ought to have produced the directors of the subscribing companies before the AO so that they could explain the sources from which the share subscription was made.
As stated that there is no complaints either from the end of the assessee company or from the end of the alleged subscriber company. This finding recorded by the AO as affirmed by the CIT(A), if required to be set aside by the Tribunal, reasons have to be assigned. Therefore, we find that the conclusion arrived at by Tribunal is insufficient to support its ultimate conclusion in allowing the assessee’s appeal. Therefore, we are of the view that the matter has to be remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
Revenue appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to take a fresh decision.
-
2024 (4) TMI 750
Revision u/s 263 - CSR expenses admissibility as the deduction u/s 37(1) - assessee is public sector undertaking - Tribunal on fact concluded that it is not a case of no enquiry and nor it is a case of non-application of mind - HELD THAT:- ITAT's factual finding cannot be dislodged in an appeal filed u/s 260A where we are required to answer substantial questions of law for consideration.
With regard to the admissibility of the expenses u/s 37(1) Tribunal has taken note of the decision in the case of Hindustan Copper Limited. [2020 (1) TMI 1324 - ITAT KOLKATA] the facts of the said case is also on the similar line as in the said case the assessee was a public sector undertaking and certain directives issued by the Government of India was followed by the assessee. There are two notifications issued by the Government of India, the first of which is by Office Memorandum dated 21.06.2011, wherein the expenses incurred by public sector undertakings in the form of fee charged for participation in CSR Training Programme/Workshops or for sponsorship of Workshops/programmes organized by Tata Institute of Social Sciences etc. will be allowed to be included under the CSR Budgets of Central Public Sector Enterprises. The other notification is dated 1st November, 2011 which stipulates the guidelines on Corporate Social Responsibility for Central Public Sector Enterprises. Admittedly, the respondent assessee has complied with the said directives issued by the Government of India.
Identical issue was considered by this Court in the case of Ramesh Prasad Sao [2023 (10) TMI 405 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] wherein the assessee company was engaged in iron ore mining and it incurred periphery development expenses for territorial welfare as well as welfare of local people in the area in which mines were operating as per the direction of the local administration and such CSR expenses incurred by the assessee prior to the assessment year 2015-16 were held to be liable as business expenditure as same was wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business.
Thus on facts we are convinced that the expenses were allowable more so, when the respondent assessee is a public sector undertaking and they had carried out a notification and they had implemented the notifications issued by the Government of India. The specific case of the assessee was that they incurred the expenditure for facilitating the business of construction and repair of ships mainly for Indian Navy and they were required to take up certain activity for the benefit of people residing in the said locality. Matter is entirely factual and no substantial question of law arises.
-
2024 (4) TMI 749
Acquittal of charge u/s 276CC - respondent has failed to comply with the provisions contained u/s 139(1) and he has submitted the income tax returns after a delay of 28 months - “intention”, “motive” and “knowledge” - “culpable mental state” on the part of the accused - HELD THAT:- Apex Court in the case of Prem Das [1999 (2) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] held that for holding an accused guilty u/s 276CC ‘mens rea’ is a necessary ingredient. Hence, in absence of proof of ‘mens rea’ and on the basis of mere presumption u/s 132(4-A), the conviction cannot be sustained.
In the above case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly held that the complainant in order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 276C has to prove the mens rea of the accused for non-payment of tax or attempt to evade the tax. But in the present case, the accused respondent has explained the reasons, in detail, about the delay in filing the income tax returns and depositing the entire tax amount with penalty subsequently. Therefore, the complainant/ appellant has failed to prove that the respondent had mens rea to evade the payment of tax. Accordingly, the Income Tax Department has failed to prove the guilt of the accused respondent beyond all the reasonable doubts.
The trial Judge came to the conclusion that even no notice was given to the respondent prior to filing of the complaint against him. Hence, it was found that the offence u/s 276CC was not found to be proved against the respondent.
It is the settled principle of law that while appreciating the evidence, in an appeal against acquittal, if the appellate Court finds that two views are plausible, then the view favouring the innocence of an accused must be taken into consideration.
This Court does not find any perversity in the findings arrived at by the trial Court in acquitting the accused under the aforesaid offences. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The judgment of acquittal of the accused respondent, passed by the Court below, is upheld.
-
2024 (4) TMI 748
Denial of specific request for personal hearing - petitioner expressing his difficulty in availing the opportunity of personal hearing through video conference, personal hearing was not granted, on the premise that the petitioner had not clicked on the Assessee Request Button/Icon and also not filled up the “Box of agenda of VC” - HELD THAT:- We find there is merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, since under identical circumstances, this Court has already held that personal hearing ought to have been extended, though the petitioner assessee might have failed in clicking on the appropriate button.
In view of the same, the impugned order is set aside. The assessment order shall be passed after affording the petitioner reasonable opportunity and personal hearing through video conference. The above exercise shall be carried out within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
-
2024 (4) TMI 747
Unexplained credit u/s 68 - unexplained bogus share applications - HELD HAT:- As observed once the respondent-Company furnished all the relevant and requisite documents, and in the assessment order, there is nothing which could show that the respondent-Company introduced its own income from undisclosed sources in the form of shares; the assessment order was passed only on the basis of suspicion and doubt, which is not permissible under the law, as has rightly been held by the learned CIT in its order, which in turn has rightly been upheld by the Appellate Tribunal vide the impugned order.
CIT as well as Appellate Tribunal have rightly ordered deletion of the above-said amounts, because the respondent-Company had furnished all the required the details, and further held that it cannot be said to be an unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act of 1961. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law.
Disallowance of various expenses - The said disallowing is on a higher side and the same was considered by the learned CIT, and that the disallowance was restricted to Rs. 75,000/- and the respondent-Company got the relief of Rs. 75,000/-, which is completely justified in law.
Disallowance of employees contribution to ESI - CIT directed the AO to verify the contention of the respondent-Company that the employees’ contribution towards PF and ESI was deposited on or before the due date of filing the return u/s 139 (1) the same was upheld by the learned Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, now the same does not require any reconsideration by this Court.
This Court further observes that there are concurrent findings arrived at by the learned CIT as well as learned Appellate Tribunal, which are well reasoned and have been arrived at after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and upon duly analyzing the material available on record before them.
This Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the appellant in the present appeal. This Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the appellant in the present appeal.
-
2024 (4) TMI 746
Deduction u/s 80P - interest income(s) derived from such nationalized/other bank(s) - HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res integra in light of this tribunal’s recent coordinate bench’s order in The Rena Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd [2022 (1) TMI 419 - ITAT PUNE] allowed the assessee’s claim for deduction under Sec. 80P(2)(d) on the interest income earned on its investments/deposits with co-operative bank.
Even the latter limb of interest income derived from investments made in nationalized/other bank(s), the Revenue could hardly dispute that case law The Vaveru Cooperative Rural Bank Ltd. [2017 (4) TMI 663 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT ] that interest income(s) derived from such nationalized/other bank(s) also qualifies for Sec. 80P deduction and thereby declined it’s very stand. Thus accept the assessee’s Sec. 80P(2)(a)(i)/80P(2)(d) deduction claim(s) in very terms - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (4) TMI 745
Validity of exercise of jurisdiction u/s 153A and 153C - Addition based on manual cash book found at the premises of the Company - scope of incriminating material for the purpose of Section 153A of the Act to make addition in hands of assessee as a searched person - HELD THAT:- Manual cash book contained entries related to cash withdrawals and expenses of Company which were duly recorded and reconciled with its books of account, as also cash introduced, withdrawn and expenses on behalf of the appellant. Thus we are of the considered view that once CIT(A) has endorsed the findings of AO that based on this manual cash book, of the Company, no substantive addition is required to be made in the hands of Company and as the cash inwards and outwards are found to be from known sources and existing books, which have been considered final in the assessment of Company, then same set of books of the Company, including the manual cash book found at the premises of the Company, cannot be considered to be incriminating material for the purpose of Section 153A of the Act to make addition in hands of assessee as a searched person, as the two AYs before us are of concluded assessments.
The corollary to aforesaid being that to consider the said seized document of transactions of appellant reflected in manual cash book in the hands of appellant, provisions of Section 153C should have been invoked at the first instance. Thus the change of head of the addition by Ld. CIT(A), has resulted in vitiating the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 153A of the Act and 153C of the Act.
Additions u/s 69C against Cash Expenditure - Disclosure were made by appellant in IDS - Even otherwise, if Ld. CIT(A) has given benefit to the appellant of having cash in hand subsequent to the disclosure in IDS, then the source of impugned expenditures incurred by Mr Vasudevan, on behalf of the appellant should also be accepted. Restricting the benefit to opening balance in AY 2015- 16 has no basis except being based on presumption. Thus, there was no justification with CIT(A) to hold that the said expenditure by Mr. Vasudevan, were the benefit or perquisites given by the company to its director which is chargeable to tax u/s 2(24)(iv) of the Act. Admittedly, these expenditures were not even claimed as deduction in the hands of the company.
The most excruciating fact is that Mr. Vasudevan could not have accounted the amount given by appellant to him as a receipt in the manual cash book as the dates reflected in the said cash book are prior to the date of declaration in IDS made by appellant. Hence, it could be safely concluded, to offset the negative cash balance reflected in manual Cash Book qua the transactions of appellant, the disclosure of Rs. 50 lacs was made by appellant in IDS. Hence, there is no scope for making any addition at all in the hands of the appellant as appellant would be entitled for telescoping benefit. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 744
Validity of order passed u/s 154 - Amount to a review of the original assessment order or not - investment in the property was not properly explained by the assessee during the year under consideration, there is a mistake apparent from record rectifiable u/s 154 - whether question is not a mistake apparent from record? - as argued addition u/s. 68 made despite the assessee having explained the source of investment with proper documentary evidences - HELD THAT:- As per well established law it is not in dispute that the source of the investment which was accepted by AO in his original assessment order cannot be revised in an order u/s 154 as it cannot be said to be a mistake apparent from record. We find that AO wants to change his view in the garb of rectification of mistake u/s 154 which is not permissible under the law. We find that the impugned order of the AO was passed u/s 154 and Section 154 of the IT Act mandates rectification of mistake apparent from record.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ITO vs. Volkart Brothers and others [1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] has held that “a mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning, on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record.
Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid binding principle rendered in ITO vs. Volkart Brothers [1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT], we hold that the impugned order passed u/s. 154 of the Act of the Assessing Officer is invalid and liable to be quashed. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 743
Disallowance u/s. 36(1)(iii) - interest paid alleging diversion of interest bearing borrowals to the appellant's Group Companies - AO was of the opinion that the loan was diverted for non-business purposes and accordingly, he proceeded to make interest disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) - HELD THAT:- Assessee uses mixed funds for the purpose of its business. The Share capital and free reserves are Rs. 217.20 Crores whereas loan funds are to the extent of Rs. 135.61 Crores. It is also seen that the secured loans are for specific purposes i.e., project loans, vehicle loans etc. only and the same could not be diverted for other purposes. In such a situation, unless the nexus of borrowed funds vis-à-vis the loans advanced by the assessee is established by Ld. AO, a presumption could be drawn in assessee’s favour that the advances were funded out of own funds and not out of borrowed funds.
We find that no such exercise has been carried out by Ld. AO and therefore, it was to be presumed that funds were advanced first out of interest free funds available with the assessee. This is as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. [2019 (1) TMI 757 - SUPREME COURT] The decision of Savera [1997 (11) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] also supports this view. Therefore, we delete the impugned disallowance and allow corresponding grounds raised by the assessee. This issue arises in assessee’s appeal for AY 2011-12 also. Facts being pari-materia the same, the corresponding grounds raised in AY 2011-12 also stand allowed accordingly.
Nature of expenses - Relaunch expenses - deferred revenue expenditure claimed to the extent of 1/3rd in each of the year - HELD THAT:- Assessee has undertaken publicity campaign and incurred relaunch expenses, such an activity has not enlarged the profit making apparatus of the assessee. The assessee has not ventured into any new line of business rather it is seeking growth in the existing line of business. Further, the nature of the expenditure would show that it is substantially in the nature of revenue expenditure though the benefit of the same may have accrued to the assessee over several years. Nevertheless the said expenditure could not be branded as capital expenditure merely on account of the fact that the benefit would flow in more than one year.
The assessee has not enlarged its profit making apparatus and it seeks improvement in the existing line of business only. It could not be said that the assessee has acquired enduring advantage in capital field. Therefore, we direct Ld. AO to accept the claim of the assessee. In other words, the expenditure claimed by the assessee to the extent of 1/3rd would be allowable to the assessee. The depreciation as allowed to the assessee shall stand reversed. The corresponding ground stand allowed accordingly.
Short Credit of TDS - HELD THAT:- We direct Ld. AO to allow correct TDS credit in accordance with law. This ground stand allowed for statistical purposes.
Disallowance u/s 14A - no exempt income has been earned by the assessee - HELD THAT:- We find that this issue is covered in assessee’s favor by the decision of Chettinad Logistics P. Ltd [2017 (4) TMI 298 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] holding that Section 14A cannot be invoked where no exempt income was earned by assessee in relevant assessment year. Respectfully following the same, we direct Ld. AO to verify the same. If no exempt income has been earned by the assessee, the impugned disallowance shall stand deleted. The Explanation to Sec.14A, as referred to by Ld. CIT(A), in our considered opinion, is prospective in nature and the same is not applicable in this year. The corresponding grounds raised by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes.
Disallowance of prior period items - HELD THAT:- From assessee’s submissions, it emerges that various expenditure, though pertaining to earlier years, have been ascertained during this year only. The same would be claimed and allowable only upon crystallization. It is also not the case that the assessee has claimed deduction of the same in earlier years. Therefore, the impugned expenditure, in our considered opinion, is allowable to the assessee in this year only. We order so. The corresponding grounds raised by the assessee stand allowed.
Disallowance of late payment of Employee’s contribution to PF / ESI - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, this issue stand covered against the assessee by the decision of Checkmate Services P. Ltd [2022 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT] Respectfully following the same, we dismiss the corresponding grounds raised by the assessee.
TDS u/s 195 - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) on account of payment made to foreign agencies - PE in India or not? - impugned disallowance was deleted by CIT(A) as held that Fees for Technical Services means managerial, technical and consultancy services but do not include payments considered as salary by the recipient of such income. Journalism is the process of collection, analyzing and disseminating information in public interest - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, none of the payee has permanent establishment in India. As noted by Ld. CIT(A), Fees for Technical Services means managerial, technical and consultancy services. The process of gathering information is nothing but a profession and these kind of services are covered under specific Article-5, Article-7 and Article-15 of India-USA DTAA and India-UK DTAA which are applicable to the facts of the present case. These articles exempt such payment from taxation in the absence of any permanent establishment. The provisions of DTAA, being more beneficial to the assessee, would apply in preference to the provisions of the Act. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (4) TMI 742
Addition of bogus sales - difference in opinion between learned Members constituting the bench - matter referred to third member - Accountant Member has given a clear cut finding that no addition u/s 68, whereas, Judicial Member has returned a finding that the addition has to be made u/s. 69 - whether, the ingredients of section 68 of the Act are satisfied to sustain the disputed additions? and whether additions in dispute can alternatively made u/s. 69? - assessee is a resident partnership firm stated to be engaged in the business of trading in bullion, jewellery etc.
HELD THAT:- As far as the salesalleged to have been made to bogus entities controlled by entry operator Shri Sonu Punjabi, it is observed that in course of assessment proceeding as well as before the First Appellate Authority the assessee has furnished various documentary evidences, such as, party wise details of purchase and sale for the entire year, VAT returns and VAT assessment orders, item wise stock register and purchase invoices, confirmation from the suppliers, audited books of accounts, quantitative tally of purchase and sale etc.
It is also a fact that the suppliers from whom the assessee purchases gold/bullion confirmed the transactions in response to notices issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act. Pertinently, no deficiency or discrepancy was found either in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee or the documentary evidences furnished. This is so because, neither the AO nor the FAA have returned any adverse inference, either in relation to the books of accounts maintained by the assessee or the documentary evidences furnished. Merely, because the notices issued u/s. 133(6) and summons issued u/s. 131 returned unserved or remained unanswered, cannot lead to the conclusion that sales are bogus, when there are overwhelming documentary evidences brought on record in the form of audited books of accounts, stock register, item wise purchase and sales, VAT return, VAT assessment order accepting the sale transactions to demonstrate that the assessee indeed has effected the sales.
In respect of sales made to M/s. RBPL the addition in our view was made purely on conjectures and surmises - Admittedly, the AO has not found any discrepancy or deficiency in the books of accounts and stock register maintained by the assessee. Thus, when the assessee has maintained item wise purchase and sale details as well as stock register and, moreover neither in course of survey any stock discrepancy was found nor any unaccounted cash was found, certain sales cannot be treated as bogus.
Similar is the factual position qua the sales effected to M/s. Olivia Tradelinks India P. Ltd., and M/s. S.S Overseas, as, the assessee has furnished all documentary evidences to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction. Thus, the assessee has sufficiently discharged the initial burden cast upon it to prove the credit entries appearing in the books of account. Once it is established that the initial burden cast upon the assessee has been discharged, the burden shifts to the Assessing Officer to conclusively prove that the credit entries appearing in the books of accounts are unexplained in terms with section 68 of the Act. In the facts of the present appeal, the Assessing Officer has failed to do so.
As rightly observed by Accountant Member, since the Assessing Officer has started the computation of income with the returned income of the assessee, it goes to prove that the entire trading account shown in the financial statement filed with the return of income has been accepted by the Assessing Officer.
Also agree with learned Accountant Member that once the sales made by the assessee are supported by stock register, sale bills, payments through banking channel and sales have not only been disclosed in VAT returns but stand duly verified and accepted by VAT Department, such sales cannot be treated as bogus, so as to enable the Assessing Officer to invoke the provisions of section 68 of the Act. Thus, addition made u/s. 68 of the Act was rightly deleted.
Addition u/s 68 v/s 69 - In the facts of the present appeal, it is an admitted factual position that the disputed transactions are duly recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee. Therefore, at the very threshold the provisions of section 69 will not get attracted. In fact, Revenue fairly accepted aforesaid factual and legal position. In any case of the matter, both the Assessing Officer and learned First Appellate Authority have proceeded on the premise that the credit entries appearing in the books of account are unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 - It is quite patent and obvious that provisions contained u/s. 68 and 69 of the Act operate in different situations and conditions therein are also different. Therefore, when it was never the case of the Department that the disputed addition has to be treated as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act, at the second appellate stage, a new dimension cannot be given to the disputed issue by converting the addition from section 68 to section 69, that too, without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. More so, when applicability of section 69 was never within the purview of the Tribunal and not even the case of the Department.
Revenue, though, had fairly agreed that provisions of section 69 cannot get attracted, however, he urged and pleaded that the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act should be sustained - aforesaid contention of learned Standing Counsel is unacceptable considering the fact that the mandate given to me as Third Member is very limited in its scope and I have to agree with the view expressed by one of the Members. In the facts of the present appeal, learned Accountant Member has given a clear cut finding that no addition u/s 68 of the Act can be made. Whereas, learned Judicial Member has returned a finding that the addition has to be made u/s. 69 of the Act. In other words, learned Judicial Member impliedly agrees that the addition could not have been made u/s. 68 of the Act. Thus, in third member view, there is no disagreement between the learned Members with regard to applicability of section 68 of the Act to the disputed addition.
Ratio laid down in the decisions referred to by learned Accountant Members clinches the issue in favour of the assessee. Thus, additions made u/s. 68 of the Act are unsustainable as agreeing with the view expressed by learned Accountant Member.
-
2024 (4) TMI 741
Bogus unsecured loans and bogus share capital money - not providing cross-examination of maker of the statement on which AO relies upon to take adverse view against an assessee - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- Merely because the lenders did not appear before the AO, cannot be the sole reason for drawing adverse view against the assessee/transaction in question. Since the assessee filed the aforesaid relevant documents by the assessee, we find it had discharged the burden to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders parties and genuineness of the loan given to assessee
We rely on the decision of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE [2015 (10) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that not providing cross-examination of maker of the statement on which AO relies upon to take adverse view against an assessee is a serious flaw which render the action of AO a nullity. Same view was reiterated in the decision of CIT v Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2019 (8) TMI 1072 - SUPREME COURT).
Further, we note that the assessee has shown the nature of the receipt as unsecured loan, and has discharged the burden casted upon it u/s 68 of the Act by providing proof of creditors i.e. identity of the lender by furnishing their PAN details, their ITR acknowledgment for AY. 2009-10; and from a perusal of the relevant financials of share subscribers, we note that they had sufficient creditworthiness to make investment in assessee company; and from perusal of the bank statement it reveals that loan was given and repaid through banking channel. We further note that AO has not been able to find any infirmity in the aforesaid evidence furnished by the assessee. In such a scenario, we agree with the impugned action of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition - Therefore, we uphold the action of Ld. CIT(A) the deleting the addition.
Investment in the form of share capital in earlier years - Merely on the basis of information given by Investigation Wing and the statement recorded by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain (accommodation entries provider) the AO without applying the mind made an addition of Rs. 80 Lakhs, despite the fact that the assessee has infused share capital of only Rs. 50,000/- in the year AY. 2009-10, and thus erred in making an addition of Rs. 80 Lakhs which action of the AO cannot be countenanced and the Ld. CIT(A) rightly noted that the impugned share capital of Rs. 80 Lakhs has not been infused in the relevant year under consideration from the companies named by AO as noted (supra). In such a scenario, we do not find any infirmity in the action of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition which we confirm.
Appeal of the revenue stands dismissed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 740
LTCG u/s. 50C - leasehold right on land acquired - CIT(A) deleted addition by holding that leasehold right on land are not within the purview of section 50C - Ld. Counsel submitted that section 50C applies only in case of a transfer of capital asset being land or building or both and this section does not make a specific reference to “rights in lands or building” which otherwise is included in other provisions in the Act
Whether the transfer of leasehold rights in land falls within the purview of section 50C or not? - HELD THAT:- Coming to the facts of present case, where the transaction relates to transfer of a leasehold property whereby an industrial plot of land was allotted by MIDC under a lease agreement to the assessee and subsequently assessee transferred the said leasehold land to SMI for the remaining period of lease, the important point we need to consider is whether the leasehold rights which are restricted in nature are covered within the meaning of “capital assets being, land or building or both”, contained in section 50C(1).
We need to understand the nature of rights accruing on a property which is freehold and the one which is leasehold. In this respect, we do find force in the submission made by the Ld. Counsel exhaustively dealing with several parameters to distinguish between the features of leasehold property and a freehold property, already tabulated above. Accordingly, the capital asset being land or building or both referred to in sec. 50C(1) do not include leasehold rights in land or building or both.
Wherever legislature intended to include specific reference to “rights in land or building or part thereof” which is included in certain sections such as section 54D, section 54G, sec. 54GA, sec. 27(iiib), sec. 5(1) of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 and explanation to sec. 269UAD. Such a reference to “rights in land or building or part thereof” does not find place in sec. 50C(1) which sets it apart from the inference to be drawn that capital asset being, land or building or both would also include rights in land or building or part thereof, to cover leasehold rights which are limited in nature and cannot be equated with ownership of land or building or both. The Act has given separate treatment to land or building or both and the rights therein.
Thus we are in agreement with the submissions made by assessee to hold that leasehold rights in land are not within the purview of section 50C of the Act. Accordingly, we concur with the finding arrived at by CIT(A) in deleting the addition on account of long term capital gain for transfer of leasehold industrial plot u/s. 50C of the Act.
Alternate plea made by the Ld. Counsel as to application of first and second proviso to section 50C, we do find force in the same - assuming for a moment for the purpose dealing with this alternate plea that transfer of a leasehold right in land is covered by sec. 50C(1) then, on this alternative plea also, the assessee is adequately safeguarded by first and second proviso to sec. 50C whereby it had entered into agreement to sale with SMI to transfer the leasehold rights in land in the year 2011 itself for a consideration of Rs. 2 Cr. against which assessee had received Rs. 5 lacs in advance through banking channel, fact of which are undisputed and uncontroverted. Assessee had also placed on record the stamp duty value at that relevant time on record which is lesser than the actual consideration of Rs. 2 Cr. and thus, there cannot be any adverse bearing on the assessee by applying first and second proviso to sec. 50C in the instant case.
Appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 739
Enhancement of assessment by CIT(A) u/s 251(2) - addition u/s 56(2)(vii) - HELD THAT:- As from the perusal of the provisions of section 251 of the Act, it is pertinent to note that though the statute has conferred the power of enhancement on the learned CIT(A) while disposing of an appeal against an order of assessment, however, as per the provisions of sub-section (2) the learned CIT(A) is required to grant reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement to the assessee prior to making any such enhancement. Ostensibly, in the present case, no such opportunity was granted by the learned CIT(A) to the assessee while making the aforesaid enhancement and directing the AO to tax Rs. 25 lakh in the hands of the assessee under section 56(2)(vii)(a) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the learned CIT(A), while directing the impugned addition under section 56(2)(vii)(a) of the Act, did not comply with the provisions of section 251(2) of the Act.
Addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(a) - Whether such a contravention is an illegality or irregularity? - As u/s 56(2)(vii)(a) of the Act, one of the preconditions for the taxability of the money received by the assessee is that the same should have been received without consideration, which, in our considered view, is not fulfilled in the present case, as the amount was received by the assessee as a security deposit towards the development agreement entered into by the assessee with the developer for development of non-agriculture land. Since one of the conditions for applicability of section 56(2)(vii)(a) of the Act is not satisfied in the present case, we are of the considered view that the impugned enhancement directed by the learned CIT(A) under section 56(2)(vii)(a) of the Act is not sustainable.
Therefore, the impugned addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(a) is directed to be deleted. Since the relief has been granted to the assessee on merits, the course of action as noted above in case of non-compliance with the procedure prescribed under section 251(2) of the Act is now rendered to be merely an academic exercise and thus not required in the facts of the present case. Appeal by the assessee is allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 738
Addition of commission expenses and franking charges - Allowable business expenditure or not? - HELD THAT:- From a perusal of it is noted that the assessee had furnished the details of the parties to whom the franking charge has been incurred by assessee (on behalf of the customers). However, no other evidences have been filed by assessee to prove that franking charges have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO. On the same reason, the action of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of AO disallowing same is confirmed.
Therefore, issue regarding commission payment is restored back to the file of the AO for verification and the assessee to submit the relevant evidences as stated and the AO to pass order in accordance to law after hearing the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2024 (4) TMI 737
Expenditure incurred by the HO for salary paid to the expatriate employees for rendering services to PE - as per revenue these expenses being not recorded in books of assessee (PE) in India, were neither actually paid nor shown payable in books of Indian PE and as the assessee did receive the services of such value through its HO, simultaneously there was equivalent income also accruing to assessee u/s 28(iv) and once the AO having not made any separate addition u/s 28(iv), the disallowance of expenses claimed directly in computation of income was merely to bring tax neutrality - HELD THAT:- We observe from the record that identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee in the A.Y. 2001-02 [2023 (11) TMI 1250 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein held that non-reimbursement of expenses incurred by HO for salary of employees of Indian PE did not result in taxable income in the hands of PE/HO under section 28(iv).
Taxability of interest income in the hands of Head Office - HELD THAT:- Identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee in the A.Y. 2001-02 [2023 (11) TMI 1250 - ITAT MUMBAI] interest paid by Branch to the Head office is not taxable under the domestic laws for the year under consideration.
Disallowance of interest paid to Head Office - assessee submitted that Assessing Officer held that interest income is taxable under DTAA at 10% in the hands of the HO and disallowed the claim of deduction on account of non-deduction of tax which is allegedly deductible at source - HELD THAT:- Identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee for the A.Y. 2001-02 [2023 (11) TMI 1250 - ITAT MUMBAI] to allow the deduction of interest paid to HO/OB in line with the decision of the Mumbai Special Bench in case of in case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation [2012 (4) TMI 80 - ITAT MUMBAI] Further, the Appellant submit that Special Bench decision in case of Sumitomo (supra) is not only dealing with India-Japan Tax Treaty but also dealt with India-Netherland Tax Treaty. Your Honour will appreciate that the language of India-UK Tax Treaty (applicable in case of the Appellant) is in line with India-Netherland Tax Treaty. Revenue is not able to produce any argument to controvert the facts of the ground raised by the assessee and also not able to controvert the stand taken by the special bench in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation (supra).
Nature of expenditure on Refurbishment - assessee submitted that these expenses incurred on refurbishment of various branch premises like electrical works, cabling and wiring, etc. Assessing Officer held that these expenses are capital in nature (and not revenue) disallowed the same - HELD THAT:- Identical issue is decided in favour of the assessee for the A.Y. 2001-02 [2023 (11) TMI 1250 - ITAT MUMBAI] as held looked upon expenditure which did bring about some kind of an enduring benefit to the company as revenue expenditure when the expenditure did not bring into existence any capital asset for the company. The asset which was created belonged to somebody else and the company derived an enduring business advantage by expending the amount. In all these cases, the expense has been looked upon as having been made for the purpose of conducting the business of the assessee more profitably or more successfully. In the present case also, since the asset created by spending the said amounts did not belong to the assessee but the assessee got the business advantage of using modern premises at a low rent, thus saving considerable revenue expenditure for the next 39 years, thus the expenditure should be looked upon as revenue expenditure.
TP Adjustment - Disallowance of expenses directly attributable to operation in India - Whether the allocation of cost by the Head Office are eligible and whether it is covered within the provisions of section 44C ? - HELD THAT:- These costs are allocated between the Head office and branches which are nothing but allocation of costs within the cost centers of same assessee, allocated the cost on the basis of allocation key, which are accepted principles without any profit element on it. The arrangements are within the organization and there cannot be any agreement, strictly speaking the agreement on allocation key is itself on an agreed terms between the branches.
It is not necessary that it should have a separate agreement between the branches and also there is no requirement of invoices between the branches it is enough that there are approved internal memo. It is agreed that it is an international transaction there has to be certain documents justifying the allocation with proper allocation key, which has to be documented with mutual agreement for demonstration of acceptance of such allocation key.
Once the branches and head office justifies the allocation key for allocation of various expenses, it justifies the purpose of sharing the internal costs. We observe that these costs are not just shared this year, it is a regular practice over the years by the head office or relevant branches which does services by submitting the various costs with proper allocation key. It is brought to our notice that various services are offered by the head office and relevant branches which also demonstrates the increase in the volume of business as well as services to Indian customers, this itself a benefit derived by the Indian branch. Therefore, in sum and substance, we observe that AO has intended to disallow the whole cost allocation made by the Head office to toe along with the findings in the earlier assessment years and not inclined to relook at the actual material or facts on record.
In our view, he has grossly rejected the documents and justification submitted by the assessee. We do not see any reason to differ from the findings of the Coordinate Bench in the earlier assessment years - AO himself partially accepted the findings of TPO and proceeded to disallow the whole allocation of costs, which demonstrates that he has no inclination to allow the costs incurred by the assessee.
Even the TPO partially recognizes the allocation of costs and rejects the cost which according to him not supported by the sufficient documents. It is Transfer Pricing Officer's obligation to call for the whole documents before closing the Transfer Pricing assessments and also he cannot treat any TP adjustment without properly justifying the reasons for such rejection. In this case, we observe that he has merely considered the submissions made by the assessee and he partially accepted the allocation and other part, he has proceeded to treat them as nil with the observation that there is no proper documents submitted before him.
The revenue cannot reject the CPA certificate since the same are specific and authenticated. As per Rule 10D(2)(A), the document must be supported by authentic documents, which includes authentication by the CPA. Therefore, the certification of allocation key and the same was authenticated by the CPA is proper documents as per Reule 10(2)(A) of the I.T. Rules. Respectfully following the above decision, we observe that in the given case also, the assessee has provided informations under Rule 10D(2)(A) and the cost allocation was also certified by the statutory auditors (CPA) of the Head Office and the service branches are submitted before tax authorities. However, this was not taken cognizance by the tax authorities. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the CPA certificate and verify the allocation key and relevant allocation of the cost to the Indian entity.
Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- As following the principle of consistency, the view taken by the Tribunal in A.Y. 2001-02 is respectfully followed, accordingly, Assessing Officer is directed to restrict the disallowance to 1% of exempt income and ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed.
Premium paid on acquisition of retail asset portfolio - HELD THAT:- We observe from the record that the assessee has acquired the retail loan portfolio from Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd, which is a separate legal entity on the proprietary basis, it is also relevant to note that it has acquired the running retail portfolio business. Therefore, it is only a trading assets acquired by it. In our view, the assessee will get the benefit based on the tenure of this trading assets. It was submitted by the Ld AR that the tenure of this retail loans are for the period 2 to 5 years. Therefore, cost verses benefit has to be recognized in this transaction. The assessee has benefitted and recognized the income in the next 5 years, hence, in our view, it should be treated as deferred revenue expenditure and allocated in 5 equal installments. Therefore, we direct the AO to allow 1/5th of the cost in this assessment year and balance can be carried forward to the subsequent years. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed.
Deduction of Head office expenditure - HELD THAT:- Head office expenditure is allowed in entirety under the provisions of Article 26 of the tax treaty without the applicability of restriction under section 44C of the Act, and as the submissions by assessee not controverted by the Revenue, In view of this, ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 736
Revision u/s 263 - As per CIT, AO has not examined the issue of interest expenditure claimed against interest from third party - SCN was issued relating to advancing of borrowing funds to the third parties without utilizing the funds for assessee's own business - HELD THAT:- We find that the in the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act specific questions have been raised in point 6 with regard to the investments/loans appearing in the balance sheet and justification regarding interest paid to others has been asked for. The assessee had made detailed submissions and after considering the same, the assessment has been completed and in the body of the assessment order, this issue has been dealt by the AO.
Assessing Officer has extensively examined this issue and has taken a plausible view after proper application of mind. It is not the case of no enquiry or incomplete enquiry. AO has carried out a detailed enquiry and after considering the fact that the assessee being into real estate project has borrowed funds from SREIIFL for the business purpose and for short term when the funds were idle as a prudent business man and for commercial expediency, the funds were utilized for giving loan to another concern. AO fairly dealt with this issue and on observing that interest expenditure has been claimed in the interest of business has allowed the said claim.
Under these given facts and circumstances, we firstly find that the assessment order is not erroneous as a detailed enquiry has been conducted and secondly not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the assessee has set off the interest expenditure against the interest income earned from applying the short term loans and advances - Revisionary proceedings u/s 263 quashed - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (4) TMI 735
Assessment u/s 153A - Addition u/s 68 - bogus unsecured loan - unexplained cash credit received from shell/paper companies under the garb of unsecured loan - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- As on the date of search i.e., 29/01/2021, Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16 fall under the category of completed/unabated assessment years and addition for such assessment years could have been made only if any incriminating material has been found by the search team indicating that the assessee had any unaccounted income/investment/unaccounted money. Perusal of the assessment order shows that the ld. Assessing Officer has not referred to any incriminating material. He has merely acted upon the informations available in the audited balance sheet relating to unsecured loans taken and based on the post search enquiry/information from third parties have made the alleged additions
We find that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abhisar Buildwell (2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT] is squarely applicable on the facts of the instant case and, therefore, since the AY 2014-15 & 2015-16 are completed and unabated Assessment Years and no incriminating material was found for the alleged Assessment Years during the course of search and the ld. Assessing Officer has made the addition without referring to any incriminating material, the addition has been rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A). We thus fail to find any infirmity in the finding of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue for both the Assessment Years are dismissed.
-
2024 (4) TMI 734
Addition u/s 69 - AO made addition merely on the reasoning that the payment of consideration was not disclosed - assessee before the CIT(A) contended that the lands purchased by it through sale deed was not disclosed in the books as the consideration was not paid due to dispute - CIT(A) after considering the facts in totality confirmed the addition made by the AO - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the land in question was purchased by the assessee much earlier through the sale deed and payment for the same was made subsequently. Generally, such transactions are against the prevailing market forces/ practices. Under standard conditions, the buyer needs to make the payment to the vendor on or before the registration of the sale deed. There can always be exceptions to such kind of prevailing market practices but the same can be accepted if there is some reasonable justification.
We note that in the case of CIT versus Lubtec India Ltd [2007 (7) TMI 281 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has observed that the provisions of section 69C of the Act are applicable with respect to the expenditures which have actually been incurred by the assessee and the assessee fails to offer any explanation about the source of such expenditure. From the judgement, it’s transpired that actual expenditure, the source of which has not been explained, should have been incurred for attracting the deeming provisions provided u/s 69 of the Act.
In the present case there were several justifiable factors for the delayed payment against the purchase of land. These justifiable factors have been elaborated in the preceding paragraph and the same has not been doubted by the revenue authorities. Thus, in such facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee merely on the reason that the assessee got the property transferred through registered sale without making the payment to the vendor.
There was no document brought on record by the Revenue suggesting that the assessee has incurred the expenses in connection with the purchase of land in cash so as to apply the provisions of section 69 of the Act. As such, the provisions of section 69 of the Act cannot be attracted in the light of the discussion held in the case of Lubtec India Limited. (supra). Thus addition directed to be deleted - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (4) TMI 715
Validity of Faceless Assessment - demand notice was issued without furnishing a draft order to the Petitioners - violation of principles of natural justice in not furnishing a draft order to the assessee and affording the assessee an opportunity to file its objection to the same - HELD THAT:- An opportunity must be given to the Department to follow the correct procedure and proceed with the matter in accordance with the law. In short, the error on the part of the Department was corrected, but the Department was allowed to proceed after such correction, thereby affording the assessee sufficient opportunity consistent with the principles of natural justice and fair play.
Secondly, M/S CWT India Pvt. Ltd. (2023 (9) TMI 438 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT), though rendered after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mantra Industries Ltd. [2023 (5) TMI 498 - SC ORDER], does not appear to have taken cognisance of the decision (supra). Perhaps this decision may not have even been cited before the Bench.
Instead, the reference can usefully be made to the decision in Faqir Chand [2021 (8) TMI 488 - DELHI HIGH COURT], Kottex Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2022 (10) TMI 1134 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], Piramal Enterprises Ltd. (2021 (8) TMI 48 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] where the impugned assessment orders were quashed but liberty was granted to the Department to proceed further in accordance with law and after complying with principles of natural justice and fair play.
Thus, for all the above reasons, we quash and set aside the impugned assessment order and notice and remand the matter to the Assessing Officer/ Department to take corrective measures and pass a fresh order.
........
|
