|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1054 Records
-
2011 (2) TMI 1497
Issues involved: The judgment addresses two main issues raised by the Appellant in the appeal.
Issue 1 - Disallowance of Interest:
The first issue pertains to the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 78,72,653 on the basis that the investment in shares was made to gain controlling interest in the Malaysian Company, TCLIM. The Counsel for the parties argue that the decision of the Tribunal, which relied on a previous case, is distinguishable on facts. The Appellant's Counsel asserts that the investments were made for earning dividends, unlike the situation in the case cited by the Tribunal. Both parties agree that this question should be remanded back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration.
Issue 2 - Computation of Disallowance:
The second issue questions whether the Tribunal was correct in directing the assessing officer to compute the disallowance in accordance with Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Counsel for the parties refer to a judgment of the Court in a different case and suggest that this issue should also be sent back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. Consequently, the impugned order of the ITAT related to these questions for the assessment year 2001-02 is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the ITAT for a decision in accordance with the law.
Conclusion:
The judgment concludes by disposing of the appeal based on the terms discussed for each issue, ultimately leading to the restoration of the matter to the ITAT for further deliberation and decision-making.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1496
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening assessments based on the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) report.
2. Merits of additions u/s 69B based on the DVO report.
3. Non-adjudication of certain grounds by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for AY 2000-01.
Summary:
1. Validity of Reopening Assessments Based on DVO Report:
The Tribunal initially struck down the reopening of assessments for AYs 1996-97, 1998-99, and 1999-2000, which was based on the DVO's valuation report. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court reversed this decision, holding that the DVO's report constituted an expert opinion and reliable information, thus a valid basis for reopening assessments. The Tribunal was directed to decide on the merits, which it had not done previously due to setting aside the assessments on legal grounds.
2. Merits of Additions u/s 69B Based on DVO Report:
The assessee argued that the DVO's report could not be relied upon without rejecting the books of accounts, citing the Supreme Court decision in Sargam Cinema vs. CIT. However, the Tribunal held that the assessee could not use this decision as the Tribunal's purview was to follow the High Court's directions. The Tribunal found that the AO had noted the assessee's failure to maintain proper construction accounts and furnish requisite details, thus justifying reliance on the DVO's report. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the valuation report, which was prepared after a detailed inspection and addressed the assessee's claims.
3. Non-adjudication of Certain Grounds by CIT(A) for AY 2000-01:
For AY 2000-01, the Revenue challenged the set aside of the assessment on legal grounds, while the assessee's Cross Objection (CO) highlighted non-adjudication of certain grounds by the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided on these issues due to the Tribunal's earlier decision striking down the reopening for the first three years. The Tribunal directed that these grounds be remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals and partly allowed its Cross Objection for statistical purposes, while allowing the Revenue's appeal.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1495
The Bombay High Court directed the release of an imported car by the petitioner upon furnishing a bond for the full value with a bank guarantee for the differential duty amount. The respondent agreed to implement the order if no stay order was obtained within two weeks. The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition, which was disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1494
Issues involved: Appeal against estimation of profit rate for assessment years 2001-02 & 2002-03.
Estimation of profit rate: The Revenue filed Misc. Petitions against the Tribunal's order which mentioned the DR's agreement to a lower profit rate of 5%. However, the CIT clarified that the DR had not agreed to the lower rate. The Tribunal's decision was based on factual aspects, not on concessions. The applications by the Revenue were dismissed as there was no merit in them.
Conclusion: Both Misc. Applications by the Revenue were dismissed by the Tribunal.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1493
Issues involved: Appeal against rejection of extension of time for filing 'F' forms under Section 18-A of the Central Sales Tax Act.
The High Court of Karnataka addressed the issue of rejection of extension of time for filing 'F' forms by the Assessing Authority for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The petitioner had filed first appeals seeking exemption, which were rejected on the grounds of non-maintainability due to the insertion of Section 18-A to the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal within one month to determine whether the matter falls under Section 6-A or 9(2) of the CST Act, 1956, and to pass appropriate orders accordingly. The Court emphasized the need for adjudication by the Tribunal on the extension of time for filing 'F' forms and the maintainability of the proceedings before the first appellate authority or the appellate Tribunal.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1492
Issues involved: Correction of cause title, questions of law framed by Tribunal, applicability of certain provisions, disallowance of excise duty liability, levy of interest u/s 139(8) and S.215.
Correction of cause title: The High Court directed the correction of the cause title from CIT Vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. to J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. CIT as framed by the Tribunal at the behest of the assessee for the Assessment Year 1976-1977.
Questions of law framed by Tribunal: Four questions of law were presented for consideration:
1. Interpretation of the limit of &8377; 5000 prescribed by proviso to S.80 VV and confirmation of disallowance.
2. Applicability of S.40(c) to payments made to directors and confirmation of disallowance.
3. Disallowance of excise duty liability on polymer chips due to non-accrual during the relevant previous year.
4. Maintainability of grounds of appeal regarding the levy of interest u/s. 139(8) and S.215 of the Income Tax Act.
Interpretation of questions of law: The first question was not pressed due to similarity with a previous case, and the second question was answered in favor of the assessee based on a previous judgment. The third question regarding excise duty liability was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification based on a previous decision in favor of the assessee. The last question was answered against the assessee based on previous judgments.
Conclusion: The petition was disposed of based on the decisions made regarding the questions of law framed by the Tribunal and the applicability of certain provisions in the case.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1491
Issues involved: Department's appeal and assessee's cross objections for AYs 2001-02 to 03-04 & 2005-06.
Department's Appeal - I.T.A. Nos.4421 & 4423:
- Challenge to deletion of addition u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 for cash loans advanced through hundi.
- Challenge to deletion of addition u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for interest earned on cash loans advanced through hundi.
Department's Appeal - I.T.A. No.4422:
- Challenge to deletion of addition u/s 68 of the Act for interest earned on cash loans advanced through hundi.
Department's Appeal - I.T.A. No.4424:
- Challenge to deletion of addition u/s 69A of the I.T. Act for cash loans advanced through hundi.
Assessee's Cross Objections:
- Objection to the action of the AO u/s 147/148 of the I.T. Act.
In the assessment proceedings, a search and seizure operation revealed incriminatory documents related to unaccounted hundi transactions/cash loan transactions. The AO made additions u/s 69A and 68 of the Act based on these findings. The CIT(A) deleted the additions citing lack of evidence and failure to provide necessary material to the assessee for cross-examination. The department contended that the cash loan entries were unaccounted and not verifiable, while the assessee argued against the lack of supporting material for the additions. The Tribunal noted the absence of concrete evidence to support the additions and criticized the AO for not providing the statement of Shri B.M. Gupta, which formed the basis of the additions, to the assessee. The Tribunal also referenced a similar case where the department's appeal was dismissed under comparable circumstances.
The Tribunal found the department's contentions lacking merit as there was no substantial evidence supporting the additions, and the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was not given the opportunity to confront the material forming the basis of the additions. Citing a previous order in a similar case, the Tribunal rejected the department's appeal grounds.
Therefore, the department's appeals were dismissed, and the assessee's cross objections were dismissed as not pressed.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1490
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the petition after the petitioner's advocate sought permission to withdraw it. The citation is 2011 (2) TMI 1490.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1489
Issues involved: Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 68 of the Act is justified.
Facts: The assessee, engaged in business and plying of lorries, declared income from lorries as per s. 44AE of the Act. An amount introduced in the current account was explained as proceeds from lorry business. The Assessing Officer treated the difference as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act, which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A).
Assessee's Argument: The assessee contended that depreciation funds were available, exceeding the shortfall amount. Depreciation being a non-cash expense, the addition should be deleted.
Revenue's Argument: The revenue argued that due to lack of specific depreciation claim, the assessee's contention should not be accepted.
Judgment: Referring to a similar case, the Tribunal highlighted the distinction between "income" and "cash earning." Following the precedent, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument. As additional funds equivalent to the depreciation amount were available, the addition of Rs. 1,92,000 was deemed unwarranted. The order of Ld CIT(A) was set aside, directing the AO to delete the addition.
Result: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the impugned addition of Rs. 1,92,000 was directed to be deleted.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1488
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed by the CIT(A).
2. Justification of the disallowance of interest expenditure.
3. Quantum of the addition disputed by the assessee.
Summary:
Issue 1: Validity of the Order Passed by the CIT(A)
The assessee contended that the order passed by the CIT(A) was contrary to the facts and bad in law. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming the disallowance of interest expenditure but reducing the quantum from Rs. 63,27,541/- to Rs. 25,31,016/-.
Issue 2: Justification of the Disallowance of Interest Expenditure
The AO disallowed interest expenditure on the grounds that borrowed funds were utilized for interest-free advances and acquisition of new assets. The AO noted that the assessee had taken secured loans amounting to Rs. 23.91 crores and paid interest of Rs. 1,37,61,301/-. The funds were used for interest-free advances to M/s Metro Speciality Hospitals Pvt. Ltd and RL Khera Charitable Trust, and for purchasing land. The AO disallowed interest @ 9% on these advances and purchases, totaling Rs. 63,27,541/-. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance but reduced the quantum to Rs. 25,31,016/- based on a 60:40 ratio of own funds to borrowed funds.
Issue 3: Quantum of the Addition Disputed by the Assessee
The assessee disputed the quantum of the addition. The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered against the assessee by its own case for the assessment year 2005-06. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the disallowance of interest expenditure based on the principles laid down in CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd, 286 ITR 1 (P & H), which disapproved the nexus theory and required a nexus of use of borrowed funds for the purpose of business to claim deduction u/s 36(1)(iii).
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, upholding the CIT(A)'s order and confirming the disallowance of interest expenditure. The decision was based on the principles laid down in CIT v. Abhishek Industries Ltd and the assessee's own case for the previous assessment year. The appeal was dismissed on 28 February 2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1487
Issues involved: Appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act challenging the disallowance of short-term capital loss on sale of shares.
Summary:
The High Court of Calcutta heard an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal confirming the disallowance of a short-term capital loss claimed by the assessee from the sale of shares. The main issue was whether the Tribunal was justified in holding the loss as genuine.
Upon review of the evidence, it was found that the Assessing Officer disallowed the trading loss suffered by the assessee, citing anomalies in the share transactions. The assessee had submitted various documents including purchase and sale contract notes, Demat account copies, and bank statements to support the transactions. The Assessing Officer raised concerns about transactions carried out by the broker on their own code instead of the client's code, but the Appellate Authority disagreed, stating that there was no prohibition on such transactions.
The Appellate Authority concluded that the Assessing Officer failed to prove that the transactions were not genuine, as the assessee had provided complete documentary evidence of the transactions through registered share brokers, Demat accounts, and account payee cheques. It was determined that the capital loss on the sale of shares was genuine.
Ultimately, the High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law was involved. The delay in filing the appeal was also condoned.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1486
Issues:
The appeal concerns the treatment of short term capital gain as business income for the assessment year 2005-06.
Facts:
The assessee, an individual, reported share trading income, speculative loss, capital gains, and income from other sources. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the short term capital gain shown by the assessee was treated as business income due to the volume, frequency, and continuity of share transactions. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision.
Arguments by Assessee:
The assessee maintained separate accounts for business income, short term capital gain, and long term capital gain, indicating a distinct portfolio. The assessee invested personal funds in shares and mutual funds, with a minimal loan for IPO investment. The majority of income was from long term capital gain and dividend income, supporting the intention of long-term investment. Previous years' assessments accepted the same categorization of gains.
Arguments by Revenue:
The Revenue argued that the high volume and regularity of share transactions indicated a profit motive, classifying the activities as trading. The CIT(A) supported this view, emphasizing the short holding periods of shares.
Decision:
The Tribunal noted the substantial long term capital gains and dividend income, with short term capital gains forming a small percentage of total income. The number of short term transactions was limited, and the intention appeared to be long-term investment. The CIT(A)'s observations did not align with the assessee's case, as evidenced by the holding periods of shares. Considering the separate portfolio and consistent investment pattern, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision.
Case Laws Referenced:
The assessee's arguments were supported by various case laws, highlighting the distinction between investment and trading activities in shares.
Outcome:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order.
Judges:
- Shri S V Mehrotra, Accountant Member
- Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Judicial Member
Citation:
Appellate Tribunal ITAT MUMBAI
2011 (2) TMI 1486 - ITAT MUMBAI
-
2011 (2) TMI 1484
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
2. Classification of income from share transactions as either business income or capital gains.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962:
The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 6,37,288 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, arguing that Rule 8D was effective from the assessment year 2008-09 and not applicable retrospectively. The assessee claimed that investments yielding exempt income were funded by non-borrowed funds and that there was no nexus between any expenditure or interest and the exempt income. The CIT(A) had directed the AO to recompute the disallowance, considering only agricultural land as exempted income assets and including liabilities deducted in the balance sheet.
The Tribunal observed that the AO applied Rule 8D, which is applicable prospectively from the assessment year 2008-09, while the assessment year in question was 2006-07. Following the Bombay High Court's judgment in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., which held that Rule 8D is not retrospective, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to apply a reasonable method in line with the Bombay High Court's guidelines.
2. Classification of Income from Share Transactions:
The Department appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to classify the income from share transactions as capital gains rather than business income. The AO had treated the income as business income based on the magnitude and frequency of transactions, proportion of dividend to profit, deployment of professional companies, and the object clause in the Memorandum of Association.
The CIT(A) found that the assessee maintained its portfolio as investments for several years, the period of holding was sufficiently long, and the frequency of transactions was not regular. The AO had accepted short-term capital gains but treated long-term gains differently. The CIT(A) concluded that the shares were held as investments and not as trading assets, directing the AO to assess the income as capital gains.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee's investments were consistently shown as such in the balance sheet, and the AO's selective treatment of transactions was not justified. The Tribunal emphasized that the department had accepted the investments in earlier years, and there was no basis to change the classification for the year under consideration. Citing the Madras High Court's ruling in N.S.S. Investments P. Ltd., the Tribunal affirmed that the income should be classified as capital gains.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal and allowed the assessee's cross-objection for statistical purposes, directing the AO to reassess the disallowance under Section 14A without applying Rule 8D retrospectively and to classify the income from share transactions as capital gains.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1483
Issues involved: Appeal u/s 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 against ITAT order relating to assessment year 2005-06.
Summary:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the ITAT order deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding cash credits from the sale of property. The assessee failed to prove the nexus between cash deposits and withdrawals from the bank/sale proceeds of the house.
The assessing officer made an addition under Sections 68 and 69 of the Act based on cash deposits by the assessee. The CIT(A) upheld the order, but the Tribunal allowed the appeal, citing the burden of proof on the assessee, which was discharged by producing relevant records.
The Tribunal found the deposits to be genuine after examining bank statements and entries of withdrawals and deposits. The Tribunal's findings were not challenged by the Revenue, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1482
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Classification of the received amount as a trade advance or security deposit.
3. Determination of the entity in whose hands the deemed dividend should be taxed.
4. Interpretation of the term "shareholder" under Section 2(22)(e).
Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The primary issue revolves around whether the sum of Rs. 80,00,000 received by the assessee from M/s Atul Generators (P) Ltd. should be treated as a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). The AO contended that the amount was a loan or advance, thus invoking Section 2(22)(e). However, the assessee argued that the amount was a floating security deposit made in the ordinary course of business due to heavy capital costs incurred by the assessee. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal found the transaction to be a genuine commercial transaction, not a loan or advance for the individual benefit of shareholders, and thus not taxable under Section 2(22)(e).
2. Classification of the Received Amount as a Trade Advance or Security Deposit:
The assessee maintained that the Rs. 80,00,000 was a refundable, interest-free security deposit provided by M/s Atul Generators (P) Ltd. for business expediency, not a loan or advance. The Tribunal noted that the amount was paid under a commercial agreement for the supply of electricity generated by gas-based generators installed by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the transaction was beneficial to both parties and was conducted in the ordinary course of business. Therefore, it did not fall within the ambit of Section 2(22)(e).
3. Determination of the Entity in Whose Hands the Deemed Dividend Should Be Taxed:
The Tribunal addressed whether the deemed dividend should be taxed in the hands of the concern (the assessee firm) or the shareholder. It referred to the Special Bench decision in Asstt. CIT vs. Bhaumik Colour (P) Ltd., which held that deemed dividends should be taxed in the hands of the shareholder, not the concern. The Tribunal also cited the Bombay High Court decision in CIT vs. Universal Medicare (P) Ltd., which supported this view. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that no addition on account of deemed dividend could be made in the hands of the assessee firm.
4. Interpretation of the Term "Shareholder" Under Section 2(22)(e):
The Tribunal examined the requirement that the shareholder must be both a registered and beneficial shareholder to attract Section 2(22)(e). Citing Supreme Court decisions in CIT vs. C.P. Sarathy Mudaliar and Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal vs. CIT, the Tribunal concluded that the term "shareholder" refers to a registered shareholder. Since the assessee firm was not a registered shareholder of M/s Atul Generators (P) Ltd., the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) were not applicable.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the Rs. 80,00,000 received by the assessee was a security deposit made in the ordinary course of business and not a loan or advance. Therefore, it did not qualify as a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e). The Tribunal also ruled that deemed dividends should be taxed in the hands of the shareholder, not the concern, and since the assessee was not a registered shareholder, the addition made by the AO was deleted. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross-objection filed by the assessee was allowed.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1481
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this judgment are related to the addition of Rs. 13,33,500 under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the Assessee's appeal, and the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of undervaluation of closing stock and excessive job charges in the Revenue's appeal.
Assessee's Appeal - ITA No.1625/Ahd/2008:
The Assessee appealed against the addition of Rs. 13,33,500 under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Assessee argued that the issue is covered in their favor by a previous decision of the ITAT, which held the amendment in Section 40(a)(ia) to be retrospective. The ITAT clarified that if TDS is paid before the due date for filing the return, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is required. The ITAT considered the amendment as clarificatory and retrospective in nature, citing relevant case laws. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for factual verification of TDS payment.
Revenue's Appeal - ITA No.2286/Ahd/2008:
In the Revenue's appeal, the AO had made additions on the grounds of undervaluation of closing stock and excessive job charges. The CIT(A) deleted the additions based on specific findings. The CIT(A) noted that the closing stock was old and unsaleable, hence valued at a lower price, which was justified. The Revenue's appeal was rejected as the factual findings were not contested. Regarding the job charges, the CIT(A) found that the charges were not excessive considering the rates charged to outside parties. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on both grounds, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
In conclusion, the Assessee's appeal was allowed concerning the Section 40(a)(ia) addition, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed regarding the additions made by the AO. The judgment was pronounced on 4th February 2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1480
Issues involved: Appeal against deletion of addition u/s 153A/C of the Income Tax Act for assessment years 2007-08 & 2008-09.
Summary:
1. The appeals by Revenue were against the CIT (A)'s order deleting the addition u/s 153A/C of the Act.
2. A search operation under section 132 revealed incriminating material related to the assessee company.
3. The assessing officer disagreed with the assessee's accounting method, leading to losses in both years.
4. CIT (A) found the assessing officer's addition improper as similar accounting methods were accepted in other group cases.
5. Revenue appealed CIT (A)'s decision.
6. Departmental representative argued for regular additions based on accounting standards and potential tax liability.
7. Assessee's counsel defended the consistent accounting policy followed by the group companies.
8. ITAT Hyderabad found the assessing officer's rejection of the accounting method unjustified and upheld CIT (A)'s decision.
9. Both appeals by Revenue were dismissed.
This judgment highlights the importance of consistent application of accounting methods and the need for clear findings to support additions made by assessing officers.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1479
Issues involved: Appeal against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding addition made on account of suppression of production due to oil gain, difference in stock of raw materials, and excess consumption of electric power.
Issue 1: Suppression of production due to oil gain
The Assessing Officer made an addition to the income of the assessee based on the oil gain rate of another company, despite the assessee's explanation that technological advancements had reduced oil consumption. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition, noting lack of evidence supporting the Assessing Officer's view and the absence of confrontational details regarding other cases. The Tribunal upheld the decision, emphasizing the lack of proof of oil gain by the assessee and the failure to confront comparable cases to the assessee.
Issue 2: Suppression of production due to difference in stock of raw materials
The Assessing Officer added an amount to the income of the assessee due to unrecorded production based on discrepancies in raw material stock. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition, accepting the explanation provided by the assessee and considering the return of goods. The Tribunal affirmed the decision, finding no discrepancy in the explanation and no justification for presuming suppression of production.
Issue 3: Suppression of production due to excess consumption of electric power
The Assessing Officer added an amount to the income of the assessee for unrecorded production based on electricity consumption rates. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition, citing the variability of electricity consumption in production processes. The Tribunal agreed with the decision, noting the lack of evidence supporting the Assessing Officer's calculations and the speculative nature of the addition.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1478
Issues Involved: The appeal and cross objection are directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) u/s 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, revolving around the deletion u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act.
Revenue's Appeal - Assessment Year 2007-08:
1. The AO made an addition u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act based on the shareholding pattern of the assessee and M/s Arora Fabrics Pvt Ltd.
2. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions after considering the submissions and case laws, stating that the loans and advances cannot be taxed as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) as only shareholders can be assessed for deemed dividend.
3. The ld. CIT(A) found that the conditions of Sec 2(22)(e) regarding shareholding were not fulfilled, and different shareholders cannot be clubbed to decide the issue.
4. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the ld. CIT(A) based on the legal discussions and case laws cited by the assessee.
Cross Objection - Assessment Year 2007-08:
1. The cross objection was dismissed as infructuous in support of the appellate order.
2. The appeal of the revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee were both dismissed.
Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the decision of the ld. CIT(A) to delete the additions made u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on the shareholding patterns and legal interpretations provided in various case laws.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1477
Issues involved: The issues involved in the judgment include the recall of an ex-parte Tribunal order, addition of share capital u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, enhancement of income by CIT(A), appeal before the Tribunal, dismissal of appeal as in fructuous, reversal of CIT(A)'s order u/s 154 of the Act, and revival of the appeal.
Recall of Ex-parte Tribunal Order:
The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking the recall of the ex-parte Tribunal order dated 29.01.2010. The Tribunal had dismissed the assessee's appeal as in fructuous, granting liberty to move an application for revival if the order passed by the CIT(A) u/s 154 of the Act was disturbed by the Tribunal.
Addition of Share Capital u/s 68 of the I.T. Act:
The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of &8377; 1,38,00,000/- made by the AO on account of share capital u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, treating it as unexplained. Additionally, the CIT(A) enhanced the assessee's income by &8377; 92 lakh on account of unexplained cash credit representing share capital. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had confirmed the addition by finding that the identity of the assessee's creditors was sham, creditworthiness was not proved, and the transactions were not genuine.
Appeal Before the Tribunal:
The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal, contending that all disputed additions had been deleted by the CIT(A) in a subsequent order. The Tribunal, in its order dated 16.02.2009, dismissed the appeal as in fructuous but granted liberty to move for revival if the CIT(A)'s order u/s 154 of the Act was disturbed.
Reversal of CIT(A)'s Order u/s 154 of the Act:
The Tribunal allowed the department's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order dated 23.01.2009, where the CIT(A) had reversed his earlier order confirming and enhancing the addition made by the AO on account of bogus share capital. The Tribunal found that the earlier order was based on the lack of creditworthiness of share applicants, which could not be sustained in light of subsequent legal developments.
Revival of the Appeal:
The Tribunal, in light of the High Court's observation and the reversal of the CIT(A)'s order, allowed the assessee's appeal, reviving it for further consideration. The High Court directed the Tribunal to consider the application for revival in accordance with the liberty granted earlier. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request, reviving the appeal for hearing on merits.
............
|
9911796707
