|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1271 Records
-
2015 (6) TMI 1260
TP Adjustment - International Transactions which its associate concern and the assessee has failed to furnish the report from accountant in the prescribed form containing the TP Study as per provisions of section 92E - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the assessee has entered into International Transactions which its associate concern and the assessee has failed to furnish the report from accountant in the prescribed form containing the TP Study as per provisions of section 92E of the Act. Hence, the assessing officer has proceeded to determine the ALP of the International Transactions by disallowing 10% of the purchase value. Before us, both the parties have submitted that the ALP has to be determined only in the manner prescribed under the Act.
When the Act prescribes a particular procedure, it is the duty of both the parties to adhere to those procedures. We are of the view that this issue of case for a fresh examination. We direct the assessee to furnish the report of the accountant before the AO in the set aside proceedings and there after the AO shall proceed to examine this matter in accordance with the law.
Disallowance of advertisement and public relation expenses - AO disallowed the claim of the assessee, apparently by invoking the Explanation given u/s 37(1) - HELD THAT:- We notice that the tax authorities have taken a generalized view that the advertisements have been banned by Government regulations and hence these expenses are not allowable. In fact, the tax authorities seem to have not examined the break-up details of the advertisement expenses. It is the submission of the assessee that these expenses were not incurred on public advertisements.
The assessee has furnished relevant regulations - A perusal of the same would show that the restriction is placed on the News papers and Cable TV operators in carrying advertisement of liquors. It is not the case of the department that the assessee has carried out advertisement in news papers and cable TV channels, which is in fact prohibited. It is also submitted that the advertisement expenses incurred by the assessee was allowed in the earlier years. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the advertisement expenses incurred by the assessee are not hit by the Explanation given u/s 37(1) of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to allow this expenses claimed by the assessee.
Disallowance of Excise Vend Fee and Octroi Duty - HELD THAT:- According to the assessee, the above said payments have been made by M/s Wine Enterprises on behalf of the assessee and hence it has accounted for the same and reimbursed the amounts in the subsequent year. This claim of the assessee has not been examined by the tax authorities. At the same time, we notice that the assessee has also failed to substantiate its claim by furnishing the relevant documents and it has also failed to show that M/s Wine Enterprises has not claimed the impugned payments as its expenditure.
Hence, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the AO. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO for fresh examination. Assessee is also directed to furnish necessary documents to substantiate its claim.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1259
Nature of expenditure - software expenses - revenue or capital in nature - Expenses incurred on registration of domain was disallowed by the AO on the plea that same is capital in nature - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Raychem RPG Ltd. [2011 (7) TMI 953 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that software did not form part of the profit-making apparatus, it facilitate the assessee’s trading operations or enable the management to conduct the assessee’s business more efficiently or more profitably but it was not in the nature of profit-making apparatus. Therefore, expenditure on software is to be allowed as revenue expenditure.
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. [2011 (11) TMI 2 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that software expenditure is incurred not to create new asset or a new source of income but to upgrade the system. Even the extent of expenditure is not a decisive factor in determining its nature. It was held that software expenditure so incurred is revenue in nature.
We do not find any merit in the action of the lower authorities for treating software expenses as capital in nature. Accordingly, the AO is directed to allow software expenses as revenue expenditure.
Disallowance of repairs and maintenance, renovation expenses by treating the same as capital - contention of AO was that the said expenses add on the cost of the system and in turn gives benefit of enduring nature to the assessee’s business - HELD THAT:- The amount incurred on purchase of Ram and hard disk drive is recurring in nature and no advantage of enduring benefit is achieved by the assessee. Accordingly, there is no justification for treating the same as capital expenditure. In regard to the expenditure incurred on interior work done at Bangalore office no new asset was created but expenditure was made to have a better look and facilitate efficient working in the office of the rented premises. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the action of the lower authorities for treating these expenses as capital in nature.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1258
Addition on low gross profit - assessee is in wholesale business of purchase and sale of iron, steel, plates, etc - HELD THAT:- AO has not brought on record any cogent material in support of the claim that assessee’s books of account are liable to be rejected. A very slight decline in gross profit ratio cannot give rise to rejection of books of account in this case. There is no rule that the gross profit ratio should follow a constant ratio with mathematical precision. We further note that there has been a huge and over 100% increase in the turnover as compared to preceding year. Hence, the explanation that increase in turnover has affected margin cannot be brushed aside. In these circumstances, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) and delete the addition on account of low gross profit. Ground no.1, is dismissed.
Addition u/s 40A(2)(b) on account of interest paid - Assessee submitted before us that bank interest rate cannot be compared with the rate of interest on unsecured loan and that even bank charges interest @ 24% on credit card - As regards loan from Shri Trilochan Singh Chawla, he submitted that it was for a short period of six months - HELD THAT:- We agree that the interest paid on unsecured loan cannot be compared with bank interest rates. Furthermore, similar rate of interest has been paid by the assessee in other assessment years which has been accepted by the Revenue. The instance of Shri Trilochan Singh Chawla, has been suitably distinguished by the learned Counsel. In these circumstances, in our considered opinion, the rate of interest paid by the assessee to the persons specified under section 40A(2)(b) cannot be considered to be excessive. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A). Ground no.2, is dismissed.
Assessee had paid commission to two persons who are the persons specified under section 40A(2) - HELD THAT:- We note that there has been substantial increase in the turnover of the assessee, hence, the claim that it was the efforts of the commission recipients that brought a huge increase in the turnover cannot be rejected. It is a settled law that the Assessing Officer cannot sit into the shoes of the assessee and decide as to what is reasonable. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A). Ground no.3, is dismissed.
Addition on low household withdrawals - referring to the capital gains of the assessee AO opined that all the members of the assessee family are bestowed with substantial accumulation of capital. Making an estimate of income and drawings shown by the members of the assessee, AO was of the opinion that withdrawal of ₹ 3,480 per month per member was not sufficient - HELD THAT:- We agree that the Assessing Officer has made addition on presumption. The Assessing Officer has computed that per member per month withdrawal by the assessee’s family was ₹ 3,500. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, ground no.4 is dismissed.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1257
Rejection of books of accounts - Addition by applying NP @0.73% by invoking provisions u/s 145(3) - HELD THAT:- We are also of the opinion that the graph of the business profit is always not a straight line but it fluctuates year to year. The reasons for the fluctuations as given by the assessee that there was higher expenditure of electricity, stated to be main ingredient for the manufacturing of steel products and MS Ingots. It is also worth to mention that the AO has not given any specific reason for rejection of books of accounts.
When the day to day consumption register was maintained and the sales/purchase were stated to be verifiable by supporting bills/vouchers, hence in our opinion as well; the invoking of the provisions of section 145 that too in a cursive manner was not appreciable in the eyes of law. For this legal proposition few case laws have been cited but keeping brevity in mind same are not to be discussed in detail. We, therefore, uphold the view taken by the ld. CIT(A). This ground is dismissed.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1256
Mis-selling of schemes to the public - "Ponzi Scheme" - company refused to refund the money invested by the complainant in June 2012, when the complainant approached the company for refund of the money as she wanted to discontinue with the plan - preliminary inquiry into whether or not Citrus is carrying on activities of 'collective investment scheme' in terms of Section 11AA of the SEBI Act - HELD THAT:- Promoters/Directors/persons in charge of the business of Citrus. Incidentally, the same Directors are also the promoter/directors of Royal Twinkle against whom directions were passed by SEBI on March 07, 2014. Furthermore, SEBI has received several investor complaints against Citrus alleging that Directors of Royal Twinkle are now running their collective investment schemes through Citrus.
It is obvious that the schemes launched by Royal Twinkle and Citrus are identical in nature and the same management is running the schemes of both the companies i.e. Royal Twinkle and Citrus. This fact is in direct contravention of the assertion made in the company's letter wherein they stated that they have not offered similar holiday plans through its associates, group etc.
This indicates that Citrus is deliberately making false/misleading statements. At this juncture, SEBI cannot be a mere spectator ignoring the investor complaints- specially in the light of the fact that the quantum of funds mobilized from public is a pretty sizeable ₹ 777.04 Crores as on March 31, 2013. As detailed before, Citrus has steadfastly refused to give the latest and relevant information to SEBI despite being given several opportunities to do so. The trail of all these events as well as the conduct of Citrus lead me to draw a prima facie inference that the refusal to give information is nothing but an attempt to conceal the real nature of its fund mobilizing activities.
Protecting the interests of investors is the first and foremost mandate for SEBI. Therefore, steps have to be taken in the instant matter to ensure that only legitimate investment activities are carried on by Citrus and no investors are defrauded. Further, in order to safeguard the assets/property acquired by Citrus and its promoters/directors using the funds collected from the investing public until full facts and materials are brought and final decision is taken in the matter, it is incumbent on SEBI to take preventive action by way of an immediate measure.
Thus no other alternative but to take recourse to an interim order against Citrus and its Directors for preventing them from further carrying on with its existing fund mobilizing activity by launching 'collective investment scheme', without obtaining registration from SEBI in accordance with law.
This order shall be treated as a show cause notice and Citrus and its Directors may show cause as to why the plans/schemes identified in this order should not be held as a 'collective investment scheme' in terms of the Section 11AA of the SEBI Act and the CIS Regulations and why appropriate directions under the SEBI Act and CIS Regulations, including directions in terms of Regulations 65 and 73 of the CIS Regulations should not be issued against them.
Citrus and its abovementioned Directors may, within 21 days from the date of receipt of this Order, file their reply.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1255
Violation of the principles of natural justice - rectification application not cosidered - grievance of the petitioner is that when the petitioner had already filed application seeking certain rectification giving three clear reasons and found no response - without issuing any notice on the pending application under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 seeking rectification, ex-parte order passed - HELD THAT:- The learned Additional Government Pleader (T) is unable to support the impugned order. The reason is that when the petitioner's application filed under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 seeking certain rectification on three reasons has not been considered, he has come to this Court by filing writ petition no.10546/2011 and this Court also directed the respondent to pass appropriate order on the pending application dated 31.03.2011, while so, the first respondent without issuing any notice and without giving any reasonable opportunity has passed the impugned exparte order.
The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent to pass a speaking order after giving personal hearing to the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1254
Cognizance u/s 276B r.w.s. 278B of the Income Tax Act and u/s 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code - tax deducted at source from the employees of H.E.C.was not deposited with the Income Tax Department - whether petitioner will not come under the definition of employee in view of Section 2(35) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? - HELD THAT:- As apparent that the petitioner was neither regular employee nor he comes within the meaning of employee u/s 2(35) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The terms on which services of the petitioner was hired by H.E.C. does not disclose that he was in any manner responsible for depositing the T.D.S. with the Income Tax Department.
Since prima facie it does not appear that the petitioner is in any manner responsible for the offences alleged, we feel inclined to allow this petition by invoking the power conferred upon this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 04.10.2001 passed by learned I/c Special Judge, Economic Offence, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case to the extent of prosecution of present petitioner stands quashed. The order impugned shall remain in force so far remaining accused persons are concerned, unless the order is not set aside wholly - M.P. stands allowed.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1253
Suit for declaration and permanent injunction - legal provision to delete the name of dead defendant - Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. - Scope f the words 'name of any party improperly joined' - HELD THAT:- The word improperly is wide enough to include the name of a defendant who was no more when suit was filed. Learned counsel for the parties, during the course of arguments, fairly admitted that defendant No.2 died even before filing of the suit. If plaintiff was not aware about his death and impleaded him as defendant No.2, it can be said that he was improperly impleaded. Apart from this, no prejudice is caused to petitioner by the impugned order. Thus, it cannot be held that the Court below has committed any error in permitting the deletion of the name of said defendant under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC. It cannot be forgotten that the procedural law is made for smooth functioning. It is not made to strangulate the litigants on hyper technical grounds.
There are no error in the impugned order which warrants interference by this Court - petition dismissed.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1252
Penalty u/s.271D & 271E - loans in violation of the provision of Section 269SS - HELD THAT:- We found that in the instant case there was already credit in the account of Mr. Rahul G. Shah, which was not paid in cash but was credited in the name of his wife. Such credit either in the account of Rahul G. Shah was never doubted insofar as there was already credit existing in the books of account of assessee, or crediting this amount in the name of his wife by debiting account of Rahul G. Shah was doubted as non-genuine. The amount of Director’s remuneration credited to the account of Mr. Rahul G. Shah does not amount to any loan by assessee company to R.G.Shah, therefore, the AO was not justified in treating such credit of Director’s remuneration in his account as loan transaction and thereby imposing penalty u/s.271D - No justification for imposition of penalty by assuming that amount crediting in the name of assessee’s wife by debiting assessee’s loan account, which was already there in the books of account amounts to any contravention of provisions of Section 269SS so as to impose penalty u/s.271D&271E. Debiting assessee’s account was treated by the AO as repayment of loan and crediting his wife’s account was treated by the AO as receipt of loan.
Period of limitation - We found that penalty proceedings u/s.274 r.w.s.271D & 271E, were initiated on 2-8-2007. As per Section 275(1)(c), penalty could be imposed only before end of the financial year or within the six months in which the penalty proceedings were initiated. As the later period expired on 31-3-2008, the penalty could have been imposed by that date only. Thus, the penalty imposed in 11-9-2012 was barred by limitation
-
2015 (6) TMI 1251
Admission of aditional evidences to CIT-A - Additional evidences submitted under Rule 46A before the CIT (A) but the CIT (A) has not admitted the same - HELD THAT:- We find that the Tribunal has earlier restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, however, the order was passed ex-parte. The assessee submitted additional evidences under Rule 46A before the CIT (A) but the CIT (A) has not admitted the same. We find from the order of the CIT (A) that the CIT (A) himself recorded that the evidences filed by the assessee goes to the root of the issues.
In this view of the matter, we admit the additional evidences. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1250
Interest of the actual owner of the land inspite of admission of the defendant in cross examination - adverse possession by dint of possession for 8 & 9 years by the defendant can have the right, title and interest by right of adverse possession under Article 64 of the Limitation Act - Chitha mutation can provide the claim of right, title and interest of the defendant over the suit land without having any proof of transfer of title under the transfer of Property Act - inheritance of the property of the person not known for seven years, there is requirement of any declaration under the law for devolution of the land and mutation to the sole legal heir - HELD THAT:- Admitted position of the case is that no sale deed was executed by the father of the plaintiffs to the defendant Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that transfer of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards can be made only by a registered instrument. In case the value of the tangible immovable property is less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property and the delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property.
On the face of this evidence, statutory period of 12 years was not completed to enable the defendant to claim title on the basis of adverse possession. Not only the defendant himself, but his witness D.W.6 also deposed that he had seen Rajendra being in possession of the suit land during his lifetime. The defendant miserably failed to prove the plea regarding adverse possession. The learned lower Appellate Court overlooked the most material part of the evidence of D.W. 1 defendant himself and recorded a perverse finding mat defendant established the plea of adverse possession.
The substantial questions of law will have to be answered in favour of the appellants. The appeal is allowed.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1249
Dishonor of Cheque - discharge of a legally enforceable debt / liability or not - section 138 of NI Act - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the first respondent has admitted the signature on the cheque. The defence is that it was given as a security and not against any legally enforceable liability of the nature as stated by the appellant. The learned Magistrate has considered the evidence led by the parties, in order to see whether the presumption under Section 139 of the Act stands rebutted from paragraph 48 onwards of the judgment. It has been found that the first respondent has shown on preponderance of probability that payment of cheque drawn on ICICI Bank was discontinued in the year 2007.
The first respondent had come with a specific case that the accounts were settled on 23/06/2008 when the outstanding was Rs. 1,10,928/- and the reconciliation statement is produced at exhibit 68/c. Although the learned Magistrate had found on comparing of the signature that the statement exhibit 68/c bears the signature of the representative of the appellant, which is comparable to the invoices produced at exhibit 7/c, however, has not based her finding on the reconciliation statement. In my considered view, the defence set up by the first respondent at the very inception, when he issued the reply to the notice on 31/12/2009, appears to be credible and probable. The appellant had failed to establish on the basis of acceptable evidence that on 31/03/2009, an amount of Rs. 2,92,212/- was due and outstanding against the first respondent.
The finding recorded by the learned Magistrate is a plausible view, recorded on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and it is not shown that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is either perverse or is an impossible view.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1248
Winding up of Company - restraint on company's Directors, Officers, Agents and Servants from disposing of the movable and immovable properties of the Company during the pendency and final disposal of this petition - HELD THAT:- From the facts and circumstances of the present case, it emerges that the invoices and ledger accounts were also produced for the materials supplied from time to time to the respondent company by the petitioner. The petitioner issued the statutory notice on 5.8.2013, which is duly served to the respondent company. Though the said notice was received by the respondent, no reply was given by the respondent and no payment was made as stated by the petitioner, and therefore, as per the provisions of the Companies Act, the respondent company shall be deemed to be unable to pay the debts.
From the dispute raised by the respondent-company it can be said that such dispute is nothing but an after thought, and therefore, this court is of the opinion that the same cannot be termed as bonafide and reasonable dispute - this Court is left with no option, but to admit this petition - Petition admitted.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1247
Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - money was received by M/s Laxmi Diamond from the director which is to be kept in a separate account and the loan given to the assessee was given in the capacity of a share-holder which is to be assumed a deemed dividend - According to the assessee, there is debit balance in the accounts of the company rather it is the assessee who has to receive from the company, thus the company has no credit balance in the accounts of the assessee section 2(22)(e) is not applicable - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- If we take a consolidated figure of all the accounts then it is the assessee, whose credit balance is there in the company. AO has treated the account in the name of director separately and did not consider the credit balance along with the account in the capacity of share holder. Thus, there is no disparity on facts. The identical issue was considered in the case of assessee’s farther. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court[2014 (4) TMI 1290 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] we do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). - Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1246
Non service of notice u/s 143(2) - No proof of issue by speed post - HELD THAT:- The notice in question u/s 142(1) and 143(2) have not been served on the assessee though there is proof of issue by speed post, of only one notice at the address 5/5/81, Janta Flats, Sector 5, Rohini, Delhi 81. Which notice was sent is not known. There is no positive proof produced before us of serving of the notice u/s 143(2).
The assessee in his return of income has shown the address as C-5/5/81, Janta Flats, Sector 5, Rohini, Delhi 85, and whereas all the notices except one have been sent to the address Door no.C- 5/81, Sector 5, Rohini, Delhi. As only one notice is said to have been sent to the address C-5/5/81, we at best can presume that one notice was served as the assessee. We do not know which is that notices.
The fact that in the tax audit report and in the bank papers the address was noted as C-518, Sector 5, Rohini, Delhi, does not take us to the conclusion that the notice in question has been served on the assessee in the absence of any evidence, when the assessee has specifically denied service.
Thus we hold that non service of notice u/s 143(2) results in the assessment order becoming bad in law. This is true even when the assessments are under normal provisions of the Act. Reliance is placed on the judgement in the case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon [2010 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT]
Whether the provisions of S.292BB would come to the rescue of the Revenue? - AO has wrongly assumed jurisdiction under the Act. We also hold that, this defect in the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO cannot be cured by taking recourse to the deeming fiction u/s 292 BB - Thus we dismiss the contentions of the Ld.D.R. as devoid on merit.
Whether the First Appellate Authority had admitted additional evidence? - In our view no additional evidence has been admitted by the Ld.CIT(A) in this case. The AO has treated the account held by the assessee in Punjab National Bank as the Savings Bank account and whereas it was actually a current account. This was factual mistake committed by the A.O. The Ld.CIT(A) has also examined the books of accounts of the assessee and has observed that the deposits in the current account in the bank is less than the sale figure.
Addition u/s 68 - unexplained deposits - As assessee had explained the deposits made in its current account. The sales were disclosed and it was these sales that were appearing as deposits in the bank account.
DR could not controvert the factual finding of the Ld.CIT(A). Thus we uphold the same and dismiss this appeal by the Revenue. We allow the Cross Objection filed by the assessee.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1245
Utilization of CENVAT Credit for payment of pre-deposit - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the appellant paid the amount through Cenvat account. There is no such provision denying the payment of pre-deposit through Cenvat account.
Application disposed off.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1244
Disallowance u/s 10B - assessee as not eligible for deduction on entire receipts - CIT (A) following the decision in assessee’s own case, allowed the ground of the assessee and directed the AO to recompute the deduction u/s 10B - HELD THAT:- We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. After going through the order of the CIT (A), we find that this issue is already decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2007-08 and the same was followed by the CIT (A) in assessment year 2009-10 and in this relevant assessment year. In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) and we uphold the same. It is ordered accordingly. Ground No.1 is rejected.
Deduction of payment of employees’ contribution towards provident fund and ESI - HELD THAT:- We find that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Limited,[2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and also the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vinay Cements Limited [2007 (3) TMI 346 - SC ORDER] - Deduction of payment of employees’ contribution towards provident fund and ESI cannot be disallowed under section 43B, if paid before the due date of filing the return. In view of this fact, we reject this ground.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1243
Deduction claimed u/s 80IA - Allegation of the AO was that the assessee company has inflated the profit of “Power Division” and correspondingly claimed higher deduction u/s 80IA(4) - HELD THAT:- The issue is squarely covered by the decision of Bilaspur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT V/s Godavari Power & Ispat Ltd [2011 (11) TMI 107 - ITAT, BILASPUR] - Also in Godavari Power & Ispat Ltd. case [2013 (10) TMI 5 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] wherein on this very fact that the said assessee was a manufacturer of Iron steel and captive power plant has supplied electricity to its manufacturer unit which was at higher rate than the power supplied to Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and held that CIT-A and the Tribunal had rightly computed the market value of the power after considering it with the rate of power available in the open market namely the price charged by the Board - Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1242
Addition on account of share application money - AO observed that Shri Jasbir Singh was able to substantiate his sources of investment from sale proceeds of agricultural land but Shri Vinod Kumar could not do so - HELD THAT:- Shri Vinod Kumar was a man of means, his creditworthiness was proved and the identity was not in doubt since the assessee produced Shri Vinod Kumar before the AO who recorded his statement wherein the investment in the shares was admitted, copy of the share certificate, is placed of the assessee’s paper book which revealed that 10,000 shares having destructive nos. 16,501 to 26,500 were allotted to Shri Vinod Kumar vide certificate no. 22, therefore, the genuineness of transaction can also not be doubted. From the above facts, it is clear that the asseseee proved the identity and creditworthiness of Shri Vinod Kumar as well as the genuineness of transactions therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) was not justified, accordingly the same is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) - As per DR common share holders having more than 20% share holding in the assessee company and M/s Precision Stock and Credit Pvt. Ltd. which was having an accumulated profits - HELD THAT:- Assessee who was engaged in the real estate business received an advance against the sale of land, therefore it was in the nature of business transaction - the assessee company is not the shareholder in M/s Precision Stock & Credit Pvt. Ltd. and received the amount from the said company in the course of ordinary business activities. Therefore the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act were not applicable. We, therefore, by considering the totality of the facts deem it appropriate to delete the impugned addition made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (6) TMI 1241
Revision u/s 263 - CIT set aside the assessment only for limited purpose of arriving at correct taxable income from financing business of the assessee - HELD THAT:- CIT has not set aside the entire assessment for doing afresh the additions/disallowances made thereon. Thus, the contention of the assessee that appeal should have been treated as infructuous is not correct. This ground of appeal is rejected.
Assessment u/s 144 - assessee submits that assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act without giving sufficient opportunity - Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by recomputing the income at ₹ 54,84,356/-. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted being mistake in calculation of loss as income in respect of Insight Share Brokers Ltd., mistaken calculation of M/s. Share Khan Pvt. Ltd. and finally on account of closing balance - On going through the orders of lower authorities, we are of the considered view that the additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer have been partly confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) without properly going into the submissions and merits of the explanation of the assessee and evidences available on record. Thus, we restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for considering the issue afresh in accordance with law by providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The assessee shall provide necessary details and cooperate with the proceedings for completion of assessment.
In the case of assessee’s wife Smt.N.Pappi the additions made and penalty levied based on the findings in the case of the assessee Mr. A.Natarajan. Since the issues in the case of Mr. A.Natarajan have been remitted to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, we are inclined to set aside the issues in the case of Smt. N.Pappi also to the file of the AO who shall consider the issues afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in both the assessee's cases are also set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer is free to redo the penalty proceedings after passing consequential orders. Appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
........
|
9911796707
