|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 1051 Records
-
2013 (1) TMI 883
Issues involved:
The issue involves the treatment of profit on the sale of shares as capital gain instead of income from business, under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Summary:
1. Background of the case:
The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2004-05 where the assessee, a member of U.P. Stock Exchange Association Ltd., declared income from dealing in shares and securities along with income from long-term capital gain. The Assessing Officer considered the income from the sale of shares as business income, leading to an addition of a certain amount to the assessee's income.
2. Appeal and Tribunal's decision:
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee, citing previous assessment years and CBDT Circular. Subsequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT (Appeals), dismissing the appeal of the Revenue.
3. Argument and Court's analysis:
The Senior Standing Counsel contended that the income from the sale of shares should be treated as business income due to the assessee being a share broker. However, the Court noted that the funds used for purchasing the shares were from the business, making the profit long-term capital gain. The Court referred to previous judgments and upheld the decision in favor of the assessee, highlighting the settled nature of the controversy.
4. Conclusion:
Considering the arguments presented and the precedents cited, the Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it accordingly.
-
2013 (1) TMI 882
Issues involved: Assessment of short term capital gain, disallowance of expenses, disallowance of professional fees.
Assessment of short term capital gain: The assessee, an individual doctor, declared income from various sources including short term capital gain on sale of shares. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disallowed expenses claimed against the gain, stating that interest payment on borrowed capital was not necessary for the share transfer. The A.O. also disallowed professional fees against income from other sources. The A.O. completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the A.O.'s decision.
Disallowance of expenses: The assessee appealed against the disallowance of expenses amounting to &8377;16,71,795. During the appeal, the assessee pressed for the sustenance of disallowance of interest amounting to &8377;16,45,880, arguing it is a cost of investment and allowable. The Tribunal found that the issue of interest expenses was not properly examined by the Revenue authorities. It was held that interest paid for purchase of shares is part of the cost of acquisition and should be allowed. The matter was remanded back to the A.O. for fresh examination.
Disallowance of professional fees: The assessee also contested the disallowance of professional fees of &8377;12,000. The Tribunal noted that the professional fees were claimed against income from other sources without sufficient justification under section 57 of the Act. As there was no evidence to support the claim, the disallowance was upheld.
In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the issue of interest expenses back to the A.O. for reevaluation, while upholding the disallowance of professional fees.
-
2013 (1) TMI 881
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves appeals filed by the Revenue against separate orders of the CIT(A)-VI, Chennai, regarding eligibility for exemption u/s 54F and the timing of investment in a capital gains scheme.
Eligibility for Exemption u/s 54F:
The assessee claimed exemption u/s 54F for investing in a new asset after the due date of filing the return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim based on the requirement to deposit the net consideration in a Capital Gains Account Scheme by the due date for filing the return. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, citing precedents and holding that investment made before the due date of filing the return qualifies for deduction u/s 54F.
Timing of Investment in Capital Gains Scheme:
The Assessing Officer restricted the deduction u/s 54F based on the amount invested before the due date of filing the return. The assessee argued for the full deduction based on investments made before the due date. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, following the decision of the Tribunal and holding that the investment made before the due date of filing the return qualifies for deduction u/s 54F.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the investment made before the due date of filing the return qualifies for deduction u/s 54F. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments and directed the Assessing Officer to verify the amount invested before the filing date and allow deduction accordingly. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, confirming the CIT(A)'s order based on the timing of investments and eligibility for exemption u/s 54F.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, confirming the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction u/s 54F based on investments made before the due date of filing the return.
-
2013 (1) TMI 880
Issues involved: Appeal against penalty imposed u/s 67 of KVAT Act, delay in appeal filing, petition for stay pending consideration.
The petitioner filed a petition for rectification after being aggrieved by the penalty imposed u/s 67 of the KVAT Act, which was not fruitful as per Ext.P2 order. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred an appeal (Ext.P3) along with a petition for stay (Ext.P4) pending consideration before the 3rd respondent.
The petitioner approached the High Court due to ongoing coercive steps for realization of the due amount, as mentioned by the learned counsel.
The learned Senior Government Pleader pointed out that the appeal by the petitioner seems belated. In response, the petitioner's counsel stated that the delay has been condoned after filing an application for condonation of delay.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petition for stay (Ext.P4) within 'one month' from the date of receipt of the judgment. It was clarified that all further coercive proceedings should be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on Ext.P4. The petitioner was instructed to provide a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the 3rd respondent for further action.
-
2013 (1) TMI 879
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the determination of the acquisition value of land for calculating capital gains tax and the application of circle rates for land situated in specific areas.
Acquisition Value of Land:
During the assessment proceedings, it was found that the assessee had sold plots of land as the only source of income for the year. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) questioned the cost of acquisition claimed by the assessee and conducted inquiries to verify the fair market value of the land. The A.O. determined the cost of acquisition at Rs. 35/- per Sq. Yd., resulting in an addition of Rs. 53,87,515/- to the assessee's income. Upon appeal, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) found the A.O.'s determination untenable based on documentary evidence provided by the assessee. The Ld. Commissioner directed the re-computation of long term capital gain at the rate of Rs. 150/- per Sq. Yd. as claimed by the assessee.
Application of Circle Rates:
The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) noted that the A.O. had applied a circle rate of Rs. 35/- per Sq. Yd. to determine the cost of acquisition, which was disputed by the assessee. The Ld. Commissioner highlighted several reasons why the A.O.'s approach was incorrect, including the location of the land, government programs for socially backward classes, and the rates applied by other owners in the area. The Ld. Commissioner emphasized that the A.O. failed to rebut the documentary evidence provided by the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the Ld. Commissioner's order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and affirming the re-computation of long term capital gain based on the acquisition value claimed by the assessee.
-
2013 (1) TMI 878
Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - disallowance of bad debts - Held that:- in absence of any material to indicate any dishonest attempt on the part of the assessee to conceal the income, no penalty can be imposed - the assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its Return - neither there is any concealment of income nor is there any material to indicate filing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2013 (1) TMI 877
Issues involved: Appeal against common order passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (A) for assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10.
Disallowance of expenditure on estimate basis:
The taxpayer appealed against the disallowance of expenditure on an estimate basis. The taxpayer argued that despite not having vouchers for small payments of commission as brokerage, the expenses should be allowed as they were incurred for conducting business. The assessing officer initially disallowed 40% of the expenses, which was later restricted to 5% by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that in the absence of vouchers and bills, the 5% disallowance was fair considering the nature of the business. The taxpayer's grievance was deemed unwarranted, and the Commissioner's order was confirmed.
Addition of amount credited in Welcare Hospital's account:
For the assessment year 2009-10, the taxpayer contested the addition of Rs. 1,24,095 credited in Welcare Hospital's account. The taxpayer claimed that these credits were payments received in cash for supplying electrical goods, which were daily credited to the hospital's account. However, Welcare Hospital did not account for these payments. Despite the taxpayer's arguments, the Tribunal found that no confirmation or documentation was provided for the cash receipts, and the accounts were not reconciled before the authorities. As a result, the addition made by the lower authority was upheld by the Tribunal, stating that there was no evidence to support the taxpayer's claims. Consequently, the appeals filed by the taxpayer were dismissed, and the lower authority's order was confirmed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 876
Issues involved: Appeal by Revenue and Cross Objections by assessee against order of CIT(A) regarding depreciation claim under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for assessment year 2008-09.
Revenue's grounds in appeal: Opposed to CIT(A)'s order, questioning depreciation allowance based on various court decisions. Claimed depreciation was double deduction.
Assessee's defense: CIT(A) rightly interfered in disallowance of depreciation. Filed supporting documents.
Assessing Officer's findings: Assessee is a Port Trust. Initially declared income processed under section 143(1). Later, revised statement admitted higher income due to registration under section 12AA with retrospective effect.
Dispute over depreciation claim: Assessing Officer disallowed `.11,56,72,779/- depreciation as double deduction. CIT(A) directed verification of claim's genuineness.
Previous case reference: Similar depreciation issue arose in a previous case for the same assessee. Coordinate Bench upheld depreciation claim based on court decisions and jurisdictional High Court ruling.
Final decision: ITAT Chennai confirmed CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation claim. Both Revenue's appeal and assessee's Cross Objections dismissed.
Separate Judgment: Cross Objections filed by assessee dismissed as they only supported CIT(A)'s order.
Conclusion: Appeal and Cross Objections both dismissed, confirming depreciation allowance for the assessee.
-
2013 (1) TMI 875
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the correct computation of deduction u/s 10B of the Income-tax Act, specifically regarding the allowance of interest and remuneration payable to partners as per the partnership deed.
Comprehensive Details:
1. Issue 1 - Deduction u/s 10B:
The Department appealed against the CIT (A) order directing the allowance of total deduction u/s 10B at a higher amount than assessed by the Assessing Officer. The AO had restricted the deduction to a lower amount after considering interest and remuneration payable to partners as per the partnership deed. The Department argued that all expenses, including interest and remuneration to partners, should be excluded from profits eligible for deduction u/s 10B. However, the assessee contended that since no actual payment was made to the partners, the deduction should not be reduced by the amount of interest and remuneration. The Tribunal noted that the partnership deed authorized such payments but they were not made, leading to an artificial inflation of profits for claiming a larger exemption u/s 10B.
2. Issue 2 - Legitimacy of Tax Planning:
The Department contended that the tax planning method adopted by the assessee to reduce tax burden was not legitimate, citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mac Dowell & Company Vs. CIT. The Department argued that the non-payment of interest and remuneration to partners, despite provisions in the partnership deed, was a dubious method to avoid tax. The Tribunal agreed with the Department's view that such actions were not sustainable in law and reversed the CIT (A) order.
3. Decision and Ruling:
The Tribunal held that the partnership deed authorized the payment of interest on capital and remuneration to partners, making them eligible for deduction u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act. However, since no actual payments were made, the Tribunal found that the assessee had artificially inflated profits to claim a higher exemption u/s 10B. The Tribunal concluded that such actions were not in line with legitimate tax planning and ordered in favor of the Department, allowing the appeal and restoring the AO's order.
In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Department, emphasizing the importance of correctly computing profits and expenses for claiming exemptions under the Income-tax Act.
-
2013 (1) TMI 874
Nature of income on sale of shares - whether capital gains on sale of capital asset or business income - Held that:- Asssessee’s investment behaviour implies that the assessee being an investor in equity shares qua his shareholding as at the beginning of the year - For the year under reference also assessee is an investor, albeit an active one, returning a short term capital gain both qua the investment in mutual funds as well as on the shares purchased by him during the year - The same is accordingly validated as short term capital gains - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2013 (1) TMI 873
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI allowed all three stay petitions regarding denial of cenvat credit for service used at a windmill far from the factory. The decision was based on a precedent case and all stay petitions were granted.
-
2013 (1) TMI 872
Issues involved:
The appeal concerns the adoption of notional rent as income from house property instead of actual rent received by the assessee.
Facts and Decision:
- The case involves a flat rented out at a monthly rent of &8377; 5,000, with the AO estimating the rent at &8377; 30,000 per month.
- The AR argued that notional rent cannot be accepted when there is a proper agreement in place for actual rent.
- Referring to previous judgments, the AR highlighted that the issue of notional rent versus actual rent has been clarified by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and followed by ITAT benches.
- The decision cited the interpretation of 'Annual Value' u/s 23 of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that even if standard rent is not fixed, the annual value must be based on what the property could reasonably be expected to let for.
- Following precedent and judicial discipline, the ITAT modified the CIT(A) order, directing the AO to accept the income based on municipal ratable value as the annual letting value of the property.
- The ITAT decision in this case aligns with the decision in a similar case, Gagan Trading, leading to the deletion of the addition of &8377; 3,00,000.
- Consequently, the appeal by the assessee was allowed, and the addition of &8377; 3,00,000 was directed to be deleted.
This summary provides a detailed overview of the legal judgment, focusing on the issues involved and the decision rendered by the ITAT Mumbai regarding the adoption of notional rent as income from house property.
-
2013 (1) TMI 871
Issues involved: Stay application rejection due to non-appearance of applicant despite earlier adjournments.
Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI, comprising of Shri P.K. Das and Shri Mathew John, addressed the matter where the applicant failed to appear despite earlier adjournments. The Tribunal noted the lack of interest from the applicant's side and rejected the stay application. The applicant was directed to deposit the entire amount of CENVAT credit demanded, along with interest and penalty, within 4 weeks and report compliance by a specified date.
-
2013 (1) TMI 870
Whether assessee is having Permanent Establishment in India or not - Held that:- assessee has no operation in respect of manufacture or sale of product carried out in India - Sales are made by the assessee to LIPL on principal to principal basis - The assessee a1so does not have a right to use LIPL premises - there should be some definite activity of the PE to which profits can be attributed and merely acting for a non-resident principal would not by itself render an agent to be considered as PE for the purpose of allocating profits - addition of ₹ 2,29,26,152/- made by the AO being a profit margin of 5% on the sales made by the assessee, is not sustainable - Decided in favor of assessee
Chargebility of interest u/s 234B - Held that:- Assessee is a foreign company not liable to tax in India - when a duty was cast on the payer to deduct the tax at source, on failure of the payer to do so, no interest could be imposed on the assessee - Decided in favor of assessee
Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- penalty proceeding are independent proceeding - the ground raised by the assessee is not pressed and accordingly we reject the ground taken by the assessee being pre-matured/not pressed is rejected
-
2013 (1) TMI 869
Issues involved: Addition made u/s 69 of the Act based on excess stock found, challenge to the order of CIT (A) regarding the assessment year 2006-07.
Summary:
Issue 1: Addition made u/s 69 of the Act based on excess stock found
The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee availed a loan against hypothecation of stocks and found a significant difference in the stock values provided to the bank and the actual stock available. The Assessing Officer treated the excess stock amount as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The CIT (A) upheld this addition, stating that the stock statement submitted was detailed and specific, and the assessee failed to substantiate the actual stock available. However, the tribunal observed that the assessee did not maintain a stock account and the stock statement was inflated to match the loan amount, without physical verification of stock by the bank. Relying on a previous tribunal decision, the tribunal held that no addition can be made solely based on the stock statement without concrete evidence of actual physical stock.
Issue 2: Challenge to the order of CIT (A)
The assessee contended before the CIT (A) that the loan was a mortgage loan for investing in shares, and the inflated stock statement was provided only for loan purposes. The CIT (A, however, dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the detailed nature of the stock statement and lack of substantiation by the assessee. The tribunal, after considering the arguments and material on record, concluded that the addition made was not justified and deleted the same, citing the lack of physical stock maintenance by the assessee and the common practice of inflating stock for bank loans. The tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the assessee, and the appeal was allowed.
This judgment highlights the importance of concrete evidence and proper verification in making additions u/s 69 of the Act, especially in cases where stock values are in question. The tribunal's decision emphasizes the need for factual substantiation before concluding unexplained investments based solely on financial statements.
-
2013 (1) TMI 868
Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of share trading loss as business loss.
2. Classification of the assessee as an investor or a trader in shares.
3. Disallowance of interest expenses.
Summary:
Issue 1: Treatment of Share Trading Loss as Business Loss
The assessee argued that the share trading activities should be considered a business activity, citing high frequency, substantial transactions, voluminous trade, low holding period, and utilization of borrowed funds. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected this, noting that the assessee is an individual, not a broker, and had declared profits under short-term capital gains in the original return. The AO treated the shares as investments, not inventory. The Tribunal, however, found that the volume, frequency, and regularity of transactions indicated a systematic and organized activity with a profit motive, thus qualifying as a business activity. The Tribunal concluded that the share trading loss should be treated as a business loss.
Issue 2: Classification of the Assessee as an Investor or Trader
The AO and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] classified the assessee as an investor, treating the income from share transactions as capital gains. The CIT(A) noted that the shares were shown as investments in the balance sheet and the claim of business activity was an afterthought. The Tribunal, however, emphasized that the treatment in books is not conclusive. It highlighted that the volume, frequency, and systematic nature of transactions indicated a business activity. The Tribunal ruled that the assessee's activities should be classified as those of a trader, not an investor.
Issue 3: Disallowance of Interest Expenses
The AO disallowed Rs. 28,47,311 out of the total interest expenses of Rs. 71,18,278, attributing only a portion of the interest to the purchase and sale of shares. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal, however, ruled that since the activity of sale and purchase of shares was considered a business, the interest expenses on borrowed funds used for purchasing shares are allowable as business expenses. The Tribunal allowed the interest expenses as claimed by the assessee.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the income from the sale and purchase of shares should be treated as business income. Consequently, the share trading loss was recognized as a business loss, and the disallowance of interest expenses was reversed. The order was pronounced on 30th January 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 867
Issues Involved:1. Transfer Pricing (TP) Adjustment in respect of commission received by the assessee from its Associated Enterprises (AEs). Summary:Issue 1: Transfer Pricing Adjustment in respect of commission received by the assessee from its AEsThe Revenue appealed against the order of CIT(A)-15, Mumbai, which restricted the addition of Rs. 12,07,421/- made by the AO by way of TP adjustment in respect of commission received by the assessee from its AE to Rs. 70,561/-. The assessee, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fuchs Petrolub AG Germany, engaged in blending, manufacturing, and trading of lubricated oil and greases, had entered into various international transactions with its AEs. The AO referred the matter to the TPO u/s 92CA(1) for determining the arm's length price (ALP) of these transactions, including commission income from M/s Fuchs Europe Schemierstoffe GmbH, Germany and M/s Fuchs Lubritech GmbH, Germany. The TPO found the commission from Fuchs Europe Schemierstoffe GmbH fair but deemed the commission from Fuchs Lubritech GmbH not at arm's length, resulting in a TP adjustment of Rs. 12,07,421/-. The assessee contested this before the CIT(A), arguing that the AO/TPO erred in using the commission from one AE to benchmark the commission from another AE without considering other methods prescribed u/s 92(1). The CIT(A) agreed, noting that the TPO incorrectly attributed the entire profit on the trade transaction to the assessee and that a 5% commission on sales to the third party (Grasim Industries) was more appropriate. The CIT(A) thus restricted the addition to Rs. 70,561/-. The Revenue argued that the method used for one AE should apply to the other AE, while the assessee contended that transactions with one AE could not benchmark transactions with another AE as they were controlled transactions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Third Member decision in M/s Tecnimont ICB Private Limited vs. Addl. CIT, which stated that ALP should be determined by comparing with uncontrolled transactions, not controlled ones. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the TP adjustment to Rs. 70,561/-, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Order pronounced on this 18th day of January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 866
Whether the views expressed by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka has got primacy while making appointment to the post of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta by the Governor of Karnataka in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 3(2)(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984? - Held that:- The mechanics of the working of a statute has to be decoded from the contents of the statute and the words used therein; otherwise there is a possibility of committing a serious error. If, as a general principle, it is held (as has been argued before us) that the view of the Chief Justice must have primacy over the views of everybody else, how would one explain the omission of the Chief Justice in the consultation process in the Kerala Lokayukta Act, 1999? Similarly, if as a general principle, it is held that the view of the Chief Minister must have primacy over the views of everybody else, how would one explain the omission of the Chief Minister in the consultation process in the Orissa Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 1995? It is for this reason that I would hold that a statute must be considered and understood on its own terms. In so construing the Act, no reason to accord primacy to the views of the Chief Justice in the appointment of an Upa-lokayukta under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. The judgment of the High Court, to this extent, is set aside.
Merely because a wrong has been committed several times in the past does not mean that it should be allowed to persist, otherwise it will never be corrected. The doctrine of ‘prospective overruling’ has no application since there is no overwhelming reason to save the appointment of the Upa-lokayukta from attack. As already held, in the absence of any consultation with the Chief Justice, the appointment of Justice Chandrashekharaiah as an Upa-lokayukta is void ab initio. However, this will not affect any other appointment already made since no such appointment is under challenge before us.
It was also contended that the High Court ought not to have laid down any procedure for the appointment of the Upa-lokayukta. In the view that I have taken, it is not necessary to comment on the procedure proposed by the High Court.
Conclusion - The appointment of Justice Chandrashekharaiah as the Upa-lokayukta is held void ab initio. Since some of the contentions urged by the appellants are accepted, the appeals are partly allowed to that extent only.
-
2013 (1) TMI 865
Issues involved: Appeal u/s 260A of the Income-tax Act challenging cancellation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed by Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A).
Summary:
Issue 1: Assessment and penalty imposition
The respondent, engaged in various business activities, filed a return for the assessment year 2000-2001. The Assessing Officer made additions and disallowed deductions, leading to the imposition of a penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, and the penalty order was challenged before the Tribunal.
Issue 2: Disallowance of deductions
The assessee claimed statutory deduction under Section 24 of the Act and depreciation. Both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) found the assessee dis-entitled to claim double deduction of depreciation and deduction under Section 24. The Tribunal held that there was no concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars, as it was a bona fide difference of opinion, leading to the deletion of the penalty.
Issue 3: Legal interpretation and precedent
Referring to the decision in CIT v Reliance Petroproducts, the Court emphasized that for penalty u/s 271(1)(c), there must be concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Making an incorrect claim in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Court highlighted that the assessee had disclosed all material facts, and the claim being not accepted by the Revenue does not automatically attract the penalty.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision in favor of the respondent was found to be in accordance with the law, with no grounds to overturn it. Therefore, the Appeal challenging the cancellation of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was dismissed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 864
Issues involved: The judgment involves the disallowance of expenditure made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09.
For assessment year 2007-08:
The Revenue's appeal challenged the deletion of interest payment disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner (Appeals) partly accepted the assessee's contentions and reduced the disallowance from Rs. 15,38,089 to Rs. 10,00,000. The Tribunal held that Rule-8D cannot be applied for disallowance under section 14A for this assessment year. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the issue.
For assessment year 2008-09:
The assessee appealed against the disallowance of Rs. 22,37,989 under section 14A. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's explanation and calculated the disallowance based on his own working. The Commissioner (Appeals) gave partial relief without specifying the disallowance amount. The Tribunal found that the assessee's detailed submissions were not properly considered by the authorities below. The issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal allowed both the Revenue's and the assessee's appeals for statistical purposes, setting aside the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanding the matters back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.
............
|
9911796707
