|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1066 Records
-
2014 (10) TMI 954 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Application for Speaking to the Minutes - Held that:- Paragraph 5 of the said order shall now read as under :
“5. From the aforestated facts it is established that an amount of ₹ 18,38,970.52 is due and payable by the Company to the Petitioner along with interest as claimed. The Company has failed and neglected to respond to the statutory notice and has also not made any payments to the Petitioner after receipt of the said notice. The Petition sought to be served on the Company is returned with the remark that the addressee is not found. Since the Petition was sought to be served at the registered address of the Company, which address on that day is shown as the registered office of the Company in the records of the Registrar of Companies, the Company Petition is deemed to have been served on the Company though the same has been returned with the remark that the addressee is not found. In view thereof all that is stated in the Company Petition has remained uncontroverted. I am therefore satisfied that the Company is unable to pay its debts and is commercially insolvent."
-
2014 (10) TMI 953 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Addition u/s 14A - Expenses in relation to income not forming part of total income – Held that:- Question of law answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. There is no dispute in that regard because the Tribunal has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT). Thereafter the matter was sent back to the Assessing Officer and who has applying ratio of the Division Bench, granted the claim of the Assessee.
-
2014 (10) TMI 952 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
ALV determination - Income from house property - municipal valuation disregarded - Held that:- Annual Letting Value has to be determined and in terms of section 23(1)(a) with reference to the municipal rateable value. If that is found to be vitiated and for the reasons set out in our judgment, then, alone a departure can be made. The Tribunal has held that there were no circumstances or factors brought on record which would enable the Assessing Officer to determine the Annual Letting Value by disregarding the municipal valuation. He could not have assumed any other value at which the property would be let from year to year. In such circumstances and his assumption being contrary to law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the Assessee's Appeal.
-
2014 (10) TMI 951 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition u/s.14A - rule 8D applicability - computation of claim - Held that:- As gone though the order of the authorities below. It is the settled proposition of law that the application of Rule 8D is mandatory on and from A.Y. 2008- 09. We find that the disallowance has been computed as per the formula given under Rule 8D. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground no. 1 with its sub-ground is dismissed.
Addition of cash expenses - addition u/s 40A - Held that:- It is not in dispute that the assessee has incurred expenditure amounting to ₹ 2,39,73,409/- in cash. It is also an undisputed fact that the auditors have qualified in their report that amount of ₹ 9.18 lacs have been paid in cash in violation of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. Although the same was claimed to be allowable as per Rule 6DD, however, no details have been furnished, neither before the Revenue authorities nor before us. Therefore, the expenditure of ₹ 9.18 lacs are clearly disallowable, as per the qualification of the Auditors. That leaves us with a balance disallowance of ₹ 38.76 lacs. In our considered opinion, 50% out of this should meet the ends of justice, therefore, in addition to the disallowance of ₹ 9.18 lacs, we direct the A.O. to restrict the disallowance out of the balance expenditure at ₹ 19.38 lacs meaning thereby that the total disallowance should be restricted to ₹ 28.56 lacs. Ground no. 2 with its sub ground is partly allowed.
-
2014 (10) TMI 950 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Scheme of Amalgamation - Held that:- All the observations and comments by the Regional Director made in respect of the Scheme in question have been explained and/or met with and/or do not sustain. The necessary report is produced by the official liquidator. Furthermore, from the material on record and perusal of the Scheme, the Scheme appears to be fair and reasonable and is not in violation of any provisions of law and is not contrary to public policy. None of the parties concerned have come forward to oppose the Scheme except as mentioned above. All requisite statutory compliances are fulfilled.
This court is accordingly satisfied that the Scheme of Arrangement in the nature of Amalgamation amongst the petitioner companies deserve to be granted. Accordingly, prayer in paragraph-21(A) both in Company Petition Nos. 152 of 2014 and 153 of 2014, as well as prayer in paragraph-17(a) in Company Petition No. 154 of 2014 are hereby granted.
It is further ordered that as required under Section 396-A of the Companies Act, 1956, the transferor companies shall not dispose of or destroy its books of accounts and other connected papers without the prior consent of the Central Government and shall preserve the same.
All the three petitions are allowed and disposed of accordingly.
-
2014 (10) TMI 949 - ITAT DELHI
Payment for royalty - nature of expenditure - revenue or capital - Held that:- Considering the fact that identical issue in 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09 assessment years have been followed and the years under consideration are intervening years and noting that there is no change in facts, circumstances or position of law as held the royalty payment is determined annually on the basis of quantity and value of production, the expenditure so incurred by the assessee is essentially recurring and revenue in nature. However, the AO has treated 25% of such payment as capital in nature. The expenditure so claimed is charged on the products manufactured by the assessee company and the same is not incurred for acquiring a process or design or technology which can be utilized by the assessee for years to come so as to categorize such expenditure, as capital in nature. Nothing was brought on record by the learned DR to controvert the findings of the CIT(A). We therefore do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) for allowing the entire payment of royalty as revenue expenditure. Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2014 (10) TMI 948 - SC ORDER
Rejection of Settlement Commission Application - Section 127B of the Customs Act - requirement that the application must be accompanied by a Bill of Entry or Shipping Bill in respect of which a show cause notice has been issued to the applicant - the decision in the case of Rohit Sakuja Versus Union of India [2014 (4) TMI 1182 - DELHI HIGH COURT] contested, where it was held that A facial reading of the proviso (a) to Section 127B informs the Court that the applicant has to necessarily file either the Bill of Entry or the Shipping Bill in respect of the export or import of the goods (which are the subject matter of the application), with regard to which a show cause notice has been issued to him by the appropriate officer - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2014 (10) TMI 947 - SUPREME COURT
Appointment as Chief Medical Officer - selection process - cancellation of appointments challenged after 27 years - Held that:- The selection process took place in the year 1986. Appointment orders were issued in the year 1987, but were also cancelled vide orders dated June 22, 1987. The respondents before us did not chalelnge these cancelleation orders till the year 1996, i.e. for a period of 9 years. It means that they had accepted the cancellation of their appointments. They woke up in the year 1996 only after finding that some other persons whose appointment orders were also cancelled got the relief. By that time, nine years had passed. The earlier judgment had granted the relief to the parties before the Court. It would also be pertinent to highlight that these respondents have not joined the service nor working like the employees who succeeded in earlier case before the Tribunal. As of today, 27 years have passed after the issuance of cancellation orders. Therefore, not only there was unexplained delay and laches in filing the claim petition after period of 9 years, it would be totally unjust to direct the appointment to give them the appointment as of today, i.e. after a period of 27 years when most of these respondents would be almost 50 years of age or above.
-
2014 (10) TMI 946 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
CENVAT credit - input services - outward transportation service from the place of removal - Held that: - The definition of inputs service during the relevant period included in its ambit the transportation from the place of removal - In this regard Karnataka High Court judgment in the case of CCE & ST, LTU Bangalore Vs. ABB Ltd. [2011 (3) TMI 248 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] held that transportation charges incurred by manufacturer for clearance for final product from place of removal were included in definition of input service - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2014 (10) TMI 945 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Revision u/s 264 - Commissioner of Income Tax power to entertain the application for revision under section 264 from an Intimation u/s 143(1) - Held that:- In the present facts taking into account the conduct of the Commissioner of Income Tax in ignoring the binding decision of this Court, we do not consider it appropriate to consider the submissions made on behalf of the revenue when the order of the Commissioner is ex facie in defiance of the decisions rendered by this Court in Anderson Marine Ltd. (2003 (12) TMI 47 - BOMBAY High Court) wherein this Court had held that Section 264 would be applicable even in respect of Intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act post 1 June 1999. In an appropriate case, we would consider the submission on behalf of the revenue.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20 April 2006 is set aside and the application is restored to the Commissioner of Income Tax with a direction to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Commissioner of Income Tax directed to dispose of the petitioner's application under section 264 of the Act as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 8-weeks from today.
-
2014 (10) TMI 944 - SC ORDER
Stay application - condonation of delay seeked -Held that:- Delay condoned - Notice on the appeal as well as on the application for stay.
-
2014 (10) TMI 943 - ITAT DELHI
Arm’s length price adjustment - commission /service fees segment of assessee’s activities - Held that:- We deem it appropriate to uphold the grievances of the assessee in principle, as the terms above, delete the notional adjustments by TPO’s adopting cost base of the AEs in assessee’s ALP determination, and remit the matter to the file of the TPO for the necessary factual verifications on impact of this corrections. Accordingly, the matter stands restored to the file of the TPO in this respect also.
Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) - payments made, without deduction of tax at source, to the foreign entities which did not have any permanent establishment in India - Held that:- We find that once it is an undisputed position that the recipient entities did not have any permanent establishment in India and the transactions in question, as in these cases, are of purchases simplictor, the payments made to entities cannot give rise to any income taxable in India. It is so for the reason that it is only when the recipient has a PE in India under article 5 of India Japan tax treaty, it’s income from trading can be brought to tax in India only when such an income is “directly or indirectly” attributable to such a PE.Once we come to the conclusion that the assessee did not have any obligation to deduct tax at source from these payments, the very foundation of impugned disallowances ceases to hold good in law. By no stretch of logic, therefore, payments made to these entities can be disallowed under section 40(a)(i) on the ground that taxes have not been deducted at source from these payments.
Disallowance of payments under section 40(a)(i) made to the foreign entities, without deduction of tax at source, which may not have any permanent establishment in India but there is no material to establish that fact and there is also no material on record to show that revenue’s claim of their having PE in India is negated by the judicial authorities - Held that:- Normal purchases from non-resident companies based in Thailand, Singapore and USA, as these vendors are, cannot give rise to taxability of income from such purchases, in the hands of the non-resident vendor, unless such non-resident companies have a permanent establishment in India. The onus to show that a foreign company has a PE in India is on the revenue and when that onus is not discharged, there cannot be any occasion to hold taxability of business profits of those entities in India. It is also well settled legal position that when the income embedded in the payments in question is not held to be taxable in India, there is no requirement to deduct tax at source under section 195.
There is no failure on the part of the assessee in deducting tax at source under section 195 and there is no cause of action for disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). In view of these discussions, we deem it fit and proper to direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) in respect of payment to Mitsubishi Corporation Singapore, MC Tubular Inc USA, Thai MC Co Ltd, Thailand, and Peto Diamond Corporation, Japan.
Disallowance under section 14A - Held that:- It is not open to the Assessing Officer to make the aforesaid disallowance under section 14A as admittedly there was no tax exempt in this assessment year. For this short reason alone, the grievance of the assessee must be upheld. The impugned disallowance is thus deleted.
-
2014 (10) TMI 942 - ITAT KOLKATA
Accrual of income - Interest income - income out of the investment made out of balance of UI charges which belonged to WBERC which was a Commission formed by the Government - Held that:- This Interest did not belong to the assessee nor it was an income in the hands of SLDC and the said income should not be considered in the assessment of the assessee. It is a fact that the Income arising out of the Investments made out of the Balance of UI charges, actually belonged to WBERC which was a Commission formed by the Government and consequently such interest being the income of the Government, there should not arise any taxability thereof.
The moneys lying in the UI account always belonged to the Government, viz. under the name of WBERC. It was only for the convenience in the matter of making investment in deposits of UI balances that the PAN of the assessee had been utilized. However, just because of utilization of PAN resulting in showing the TDS in Form No.26AS, could not be considered as any alleged income in the hands of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was repeatedly requested by the assessee to go through the relevant documents explaining how UI charges were being recovered, utilisation of UI charges and investments required to be made. This interest income of ₹ 3,46,97, 166/- belongs to WBERC and not of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
MAT computation - Held that:- As this interest income does not belong to the assessee. Hence, this issue has become academic and in the hands of the assessee, this income cannot be added while computing the income u/s.115JB of the Act. This issue of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
-
2014 (10) TMI 941 - SUPREME COURT
Application of res judicata - Held that:- It is an inescapable conclusion that an appeal ought to have been filed by the Tenant even in respect of O.S. 5/78, for fear of inviting the rigours of res judicata as also for correcting the “dismissal” order. In our opinion, the Tenant had been completely non-suited once it was held that no cause of action had arisen in its favour and the suit was ‘dismissed’.
Ignoring that finding and allowing it to become final makes that conclusion impervious to change. The raison d’etre and public policy on which Res judicata is predicated is that the party who has raised any aspect in a litigation and has had an Issue cast thereon, has lead evidence in that regard, and has argued on the point, remains bound by the curial conclusions once they attain finality. No party must be vexed twice for the same cause; it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation; a judicial decision must be accepted as correct in the absence of a challenge. The aspect of law which now remains to be considered is whether filing of an Appeal against a common Judgment in one case, tantamounts to filing an appeal in all the matters.
The application of res judicata, so very often, conjures up controversies, as is evident from the fact that even in this Court divergent opinions were expressed by the two Judge Bench, leading to the necessity of referring the appeal to a Larger Bench. It was for this reason that we thought it appropriate to deal with the dispute in detail. It seems to us that had the decisions of the three Judge Bench in Lonankutty [1976 (4) TMI 216 - Supreme Court Of India] and Prabhu [1977 (1) TMI 163 - SUPREME COURT ] been brought to the attention of our Learned and Esteemed Brothers on the earlier occasion when this appeal was heard by two Judge Bench, the dichotomy in opinion would not have arisen. The outcome of the appeal before the High Court would have also shared a similar fate. On the foregoing analysis, especially the previous enunciation of law by three Co-ordinate Benches, we are in agreement with the opinion of our Learned Brother Asok Kumar Ganguly that the appeal calls to be allowed. We are of the opinion that having failed or neglected or concertedly avoided filing appeals against the decrees in O.S.5/78 and O.S.7/78 the cause of the Respondents/Tenants was permanently sealed and foreclosed since res judicata applied against them.
-
2014 (10) TMI 940 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Validity of re-assessment proceedings - permission u/s 29(7) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 - Held that - the Additional Commissioner has granted sanction for re-assessment by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred on him under section 29 of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner has recorded his satisfaction in this regard - We do not consider it appropriate in this petition to examine as to whether this prima facie satisfaction of the Additional Commissioner is correct as the merit would be examined by the Deputy Commissioner who has issued the re-assessment notice dated 12 September 2014 pursuant to the sanction order dated 23 August 2014 - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2014 (10) TMI 939 - ITAT DELHI
Computation of capital gain on transfer of land and building - qualitative change in the title - termination of lease-hold rights on conversion of lease-hold land into free-hold land - LTCG OR STCG - period of holding as a lease-hold land - Held that:- The capital gain accruing on sale of the land in question was a long-term capital gain as the land held and transferred was a long term capital asset, since the said land was held for a period of more than 3 years. The nature of rights i.e. lease-hold or free hold is not a relevant consideration once the asset has been held by the assessee for a period of more than 3 years prior to the date of transfer. Thus we set aside the finding of the ld CIT(A), that the asset sold was a short-term capital asset and further hold that the land sold was a long-term capital asset and entire gain accruing on such transfer is taxable as a long-term capital gain only. See CIT Vs. Frick India Ltd [2014 (9) TMI 394 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] - Decided in favour of assessee
Non-grant of indexation on the interest paid on borrowed funds - there was termination of lease hold rights on 29th March 1998, which was restored only on 06th August 2004 - Held that:- The borrowing costs are recorded in the books of accounts, year after year which have been accepted as such. It would be thus a fallacy to suggest that such borrowing cost in the shape of interest was not incurred for the development of the property. Further the year of capitalization under the building is also not a relevant consideration. The interest cost on year to year basis was capitalized under the head “capital work in progress” which was later transferred to building accounts. It is not in dispute that the borrowing costs have been incurred towards building as the AO has allowed the same as cost incurred while computing the capital gain. Thus there is no justification to contend that the indexation benefit will not be allowed on the borrowing cost. In the result the ground raised by the assessee are allowed.
-
2014 (10) TMI 938 - ITAT INDORE
Addition on account of bogus purchases - Search in the case of the assessee who is the director and chairman of company - Held that:- Merely certain papers which does not empower the assessee to carry on the business were found at the premises of the concern in which the assessee is a director cannot authorise the Revenue to regard these concerns to be the benami concerns of the assessee. S/Shri Umesh Kajve and Satyendra Sahu are being assessed separately to Income-tax and the income of these concerns are duly shown by them. The investment made in the concern was not proved to have been made by the assessee. Therefore, in our opinion, these concerns cannot be regarded to be the benami concern of the assessee merely on the ground that the purchaser in the letter has called for the kind attention of the assessee.
No doubt, the statement recorded has evidentiary value but it is not conclusive evidence until and unless it is corroborated by certain evidences. There had been search in the case of the assessee. If the assessee had earned income, the evidence would have been found. If the assessee had earned income, he would have either spent it by way of consumption or would have created investment. No undisclosed investment to the extent of ₹ 5.30 crores was found from the premises of the assessee. Even no evidence or material was found which may prove that the assessee had incurred the expenditure to that extent. It is a settled law that no addition can be made merely on the basis of surmises, assumption or presumption. Supposition, however strong it may be, it cannot take the place of actuality. It is a known fact that during the course of search the Revenue forces the assessee to confess undisclosed income even if the assessee had not earned such income or assessee had no source of earning income to that extent. This fact has been even admitted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and therefore they have issued instructions to their officers that no attempt should be made to obtain confession forcefully. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Assessment of gross profit on the purchases - Held that:- Since the assessee has accepted that he was assisting these concerns in procuring the order and the assessee has got income on this account from these concerns, we therefore keeping in view the surrounding facts and trade practice direct the Assessing Officer to compute the commission at two per cent. on the supplies/sales made in each year to the Government concerns. Since the assessee has surrendered a sum of ₹ 1,21,80,000 in respect of the cash paid under an agreement for the purchase of land, the source of this in our opinion can be the commission income so earned by the assessee in respect of the service rendered to these companies. In case the Assessing Officer finds that the commission so earned does not exceed ₹ 1,21,80,000 no addition in this regard can be sustained as the assessee will get set-off of commission income against the surrender so made. In case the Assessing Officer finds that the commission so estimated in respect of these three concerns exceeds in all these years ₹ 1,21,80,000, the addition to that extent be sustained.
Addition on account of unexplained expenditure - Held that:- There is no allegation on the part of the assessee that he was pressurised to admit it as sum of ₹ 20 lakhs. Similarly, on the left side of the paper, figures are written as 10-M, 2-CM, 2-HM, 2-PS, 2-Patel, 2-Delhi, the total of which also comes to 20 and total of both these 20 will come to 40. The assessee has not alleged that he was pressurised to surrender this amount. Three questions were asked relating to this and the assessee has admitted this to be undisclosed expenses of ₹ 40 lakhs. Since the handwriting has also not been denied by the learned authorised representative, admission made by the assessee under free will and without coercion has to be accepted. Had it been dumb paper or contained rough noting, the assessee could have not come forward by explaining the denomination and making the surrender of the said amount as the figures are in the handwriting of the assessee. The assessee could have very well explained what the words represent. The assessee since even did not deny that it is his handwriting, the onus is on the assessee to prove what does these alphabets denote and why this has been written on this. In view of these facts, we are of the view that it is not a fit ground which warrants our interference.
Addition made on the basis of paper LPS I/9, page 60 - Held that:- This paper consists of letter pad of Ashok Nanda. On the top of this paper, Tilhansangh has been mentioned. Figure of 4,46,000 arrived at by multiplying 20,000 by 22.3 is there. 30 per cent. thereof is mentioned 1,33,800. Lease rent-4014, security deposit of 12,042 and development of 1,55,200 is mentioned and subsequent to that the figure of 1,65,356 is mentioned. Against under hand AKVN 35,000 is mentioned and 2L is mentioned. This paper does not contain any date. It is also not clear in whose handwriting this paper is. With reference to question No. 10 the assessee explained that this official commission represents for filing up DIC, LVN and AKVN. The question was asked with regard to this paper but this paper does not contain the figure of ₹ 2,35,000. No addition in respect of this figure can be made by the Assessing Officer. In these facts, we set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and delete the addition.
Cash given by the assessee to Gaurav Sharma - Held that:- There is no relationship between Gaurav Sharma and Ashok Nanda. No person would like to pay taxes on the income until and unless the income belongs to him. It is a settled law that suspicion, howsoever strong it may be, it cannot take the place of actuality. In our opinion, apparent is real. Once the assessee has surrendered the sum of ₹ 1,21,80,000, the onus lies on the Revenue to prove that this money does not belong to the assessee and assessee is the benami of Gaurav Sharma. We do not find that the onus as lies on the Department has been discharged by the Department except relying on the probabilities. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to admit the sum of ₹ 1,21,80,000 substantively as the income of the assessee. Thus, this ground stands allowed to that extent.
Addition of cash payment to others by the assessee - Held that:- As gone through the seized paper which is forming part of the assessment order. We noted that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has rightly appreciated that the papers seized does not have name of the assessee, it is not in the handwriting of the assessee, no date, etc., is mentioned and after appreciating all the facts he came to the conclusion that there is no indication of any unaccounted payment and it is a dumb document and not the speaking one. Even he noted that in the document in the end/lower side it is written rough working for the salary of the director of HIPL. No cogent material or evidence was brought to our knowledge by the learned Departmental representative even though he vehemently relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it is not a fit case which warrants our interference and, therefore, we confirm the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of ₹ 21 lakhs.
-
2014 (10) TMI 937 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Substantial expansion of the installed capacity - benefit of N/N. 49/2003-C.E. & 50/2003-C.E - case of Revenue is that there was no expansion in the capacity of veneer lathe machine section of the appellants’ factory and therefore their capacity to produce veneer had not been increased and veneers are captively consumed for manufacture of their final product - Held that: - The letter of Indian Plywood Industries Research & Training Institute stating that for ascertaining the installed capacity of a plywood factory, the hot press capacity alone is considered as the guiding factor - there is no dispute that the veneer producing capacity has not been increased. At the same time it is also not in dispute that with the increase in the capacity of the hot press section their capacity to produce their final product expanded by more than 25% - reliance placed in the case of CCE, Dibrugarh v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. [2005 (1) TMI 504 - CESTAT, KOLKATA], where it was held that The language in the Notification requires substantial expansion in industrial unit and the expansion is not with reference to any individual section of the unit or machinery in the unit - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (10) TMI 936 - ITAT PUNE
Disallowance of indirect expenditure for increasing the share capital - Held that:- Disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer purely on guess work and on adhoc basis without any iota of evidence that the assessee has incurred further expenditure over and above what is recorded in the books. It is the settled proposition of law that presumptions and surmises however strong may be cannot be the basis for addition. Since in the instant case, there is no direct or indirect evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has incurred further indirect expenses for the purpose of increasing the share capital of the company, therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer deserves to be deleted. We accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to delete the same.
Disallowance u/s 14A - amount incurred for increasing the share capital - Held that:- From the various details furnished by the assessee we find the disallowance claimed as deduction u/s.35D was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and the assessee did not press the grounds of appeal No.1 in which it has challenged the order of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim of deduction u/s.35D. Once the same is disallowed, there cannot be any further addition u/s.14A since it amounts to double disallowance. We accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
Claim of deduction u/s.10A - Held that:- Assessing Officer is not justified in restricting the deduction u/s.10A on account of disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) and 43B.
Comparable selection - Held that:- Considering the software development services rendered by the assessee the companies dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list of comparables.
-
2014 (10) TMI 935 - ITAT PUNE
Deduction of Portfolio Management Services (PMS) fees paid by the assessee while computing income from capital gains - Held that:- The Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2008-09 held that Portfolio Management Fees is allowable expenditure as held in KRA Holdings & Trading Pvt. Ltd. [ 2012 (8) TMI 195 - ITAT, Pune] - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
