|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 1750 Records
-
2018 (1) TMI 1533
Penalty u/s 271D and 271E - transactions between family relatives - whether not covered by the provisions of section 269SS and 269T? - addition U/s 69A - HELD THAT:- Coordinate Bench of the Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Sri Mansur Ali Laskar 2011 (12) TMI 732 - ITAT KOLKATA for A.Y 2007-08 dated 30.12.2011 (supra) wherein the Bench has considered, Niece, Uncle, Aunty, Wife of brother, Wife`s Sister and Counsin sister as a part of family members. In the assessee`s case under consideration the transaction with sister-in- law and Nephew should also be considered as a part of family members. There is no difference between Wife`s sister and Sister-in law and if Niece is part of family member then Nephew should also be part of family member.
The definition of relatives include husband, wife, brother, sister, sister-in law, Niece and Nephew etc. as per the list given in para 6 of this judgment. The transactions between these family members are neither loans nor deposit and purely a family system and purely a family requirement to help each other in the needy hours, for example medical help, education help and expenses to run the family. That is, one member of the family helps to other member in the needy hours, such as during medical treatment, education, marriage or some other family needs. Therefore, respectfully following the judgment of the Coordinate Bench, we are of the view that transaction between Sister-in -law and Nephew(family members) did not fall in the definition of loan. Therefore, penalty for accepting loan and repaying loan u/s 271D and 271E should not be levied.- Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1532
Recovery of Commercial tax dues - amendment in the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts and Loans and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and the Amendment Act, 2016 - HELD THAT:- In the considered opinion of this court, the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts and Loans and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 came into force with effect from September 1, 2016 and by virtue of the said amendment, the right of secured creditors to realise the secured dues and debts dues, which are payable to the secured creditors by sale of assets over which security has been created, is having priority over all other debts and Government dues including revenue, taxes, cesses and rates due to Central Government, State Government and local authorities.
Not only this, it is having overriding effect over all other enactment including the provisions of Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, Central Sales Tax Act, Entry Tax Act and any other Tax Act - Though, an attempt has been made by the State Government to demonstrate before this court that the amendment will not disentitle to recover the dues by them as the dues are outstanding since 2012.
Petition allowed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1531
Rectification u/s 154 - HELD THAT:- Assessment order was passed on 20.03.2017. But the revenue has filed the appeal on 31.08.2015 before the assessment order consequent to the directions of the DRP is passed. As per the provisions of section 253(1)(d), an order passed by the AO under subsection (3) of section 143 or section 147 or section 153A or section 153C pursuant to the directions of the DRP or an order passed under section 154 in respect of such order, is appealable before the Tribunal and not the directions of the DRP. In the light of these facts, we find that the appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable as it is not filed against an appealable order. We accordingly dismiss the same being not maintainable.
Since the assessee has categorically stated that its appeal and CO have become academic after the dismissal of the revenue’s appeal as it has already got relief in rectification. In the light of the statement of the assessee, we dismiss the appeal and CO of the assessee as being infructuous and academic.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1530
Revival of the Company - name of the company was struck off from the register of ROC - HELD THAT:- The object of the Company was to cultivate the agricultural lands. The intention is to sell some of the lands. Therefore, there is no plausible reason for revival of the Company. The Applicant can explore the possibilities of winding up the Company.
Application dismissed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1529
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - borrowed satisfaction - reopening on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind by the AO - addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- Reopening was made on the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing and there is no independent application of mind by the AO for such reopening. The Jurisdictional High Court in a number of cases has held that the reopening on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind by the AO is not valid.
Accordingly, the reassessment proceedings were held to be illegal. Since in the instant case the reopening has been made on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing and there is no independent application of mind by the AO for reopening of the assessment u/s 147 by issuance of notice u/s 148, therefore, the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO is not proper. Therefore hold that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO is illegal and accordingly the subsequent proceedings also become illegal. Since the assessee succeeds on this legal ground, the other grounds being academic in nature are not being adjudicated. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1528
Grant of interim protection - principles of judicial propriety - HELD THAT:- The prayer for interim protection is rejected placing reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and Others THE STATE OF TELANGANA VERSUS HABIB ABDULLAH JEELANI AND ORS. [2017 (1) TMI 1683 - SUPREME COURT].
It is difficult to appreciate as to how the said judgment would be applicable to the facts of the present case. No doubt, Their Lordships have held that when the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. finds that no case is made out for interference, it will not be proper for this Court to pass an order of restraint, restraining the Investigating Agency from arresting the litigants. However, in the preceding sentence itself, Their Lordships observed that when this Court finds that taking into consideration the parameters of quashing and self-restraint, a case is made out for exercising jurisdiction, it may pass interim orders as are found apposite in law.
One of the principles on which the Courts are required to function is judicial propriety. When several coordinate Benches of this Court have found prima facie substance in the challenge raised before this Court, in our considered view, it will be against judicial propriety to come to a different conclusion without hearing the Petition on merits.
The Petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with the investigations under DRI without following the procedure prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code - It is however made clear that the Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation.
The Petitioner is directed to remain present before the Respondent-Authority at 10.00 A.M. On 29th January, 2018.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1527
Addition u/s 40A(3) - cash payments made against purchases from M/s. IFB Agro Industrial Ltd. - HELD THAT:- Issue squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Tribunal rendered in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2008-09 [2016 (9) TMI 1537 - ITAT KOLKATA] held that the assessee has commercial expediency under Rule 6(2) of the West Bengal Rules referred to above to make payments to the credit of M/s. IFB Agro Industries Ltd., Durgapur who is deemed to be an agent of the State Government as such in terms of Rule 6DD(b) and Rule 6DD(k) of the Income Tax Rules, they are exempted and the disallowance made under section 40A(3) of the Act cannot be sustained. We, therefore, answer this issue in favour of the assessee and that the order of the authorities below cannot be sustained
Addition u/s 69B - difference closing stock of 60UP and 80UP of country liquor - assessee contended that stock record for both these items is regularly maintained by the assessee for excise purpose and the same duly checked by the concerned excise authorities is more reliable to ascertain the exact discrepancy - HELD THAT:- As urged that since the said record maintained for excise purpose could not be produced by the assessee either before the A.O. or before the Ld. CIT(A), the matter may be sent back to the Assessing Officer for giving the assessee an opportunity to produce the same for verification. Since the learned DR has not raised any objection in this regard, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matters to the file of the A.O. for deciding the same afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to produce the relevant stock record maintained for excise purpose.
Bogus purchases - undisclosed investment of the assessee under section 69B - GP estimation - HELD THAT:- Addition on account of unexplained investment in stock as made by the A.O. under section 69B thus is based on presumption and the same cannot be sustained. In our opinion, the only presumption that can be reasonably drawn in the absence of anything brought on record to show that the quantity purchased by the assessee outside the books of accounts was lying in the closing stock is that the said quantity was sold by the assessee outside the books of accounts and the addition that can justifiably made on this issue is only to the extent of gross profit on such unaccounted sales. We, therefore, modify the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the A.O. to recompute the addition to be made on this issue by applying GP rate of 8% on the undisclosed sales made by the assessee out of unaccounted purchases. Ground no 8 of the assessee’s appeal is thus partly allowed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1526
Imposition of penalty on CHA u/s 112(a) and 114AA of CA - Misdeclaration of weight - HELD THAT:- What the documents were supplied by M/s. JMD India, the appellant has filed Bill of Entry on the basis of the papers where the number of boxes were matching. There was no discrepancy found in the number of boxes at the time of landing of the goods. The CHA was not aware about the weight of the goods. Only later stage, it was found that the goods are having different weight. The importer has not disclosed the weight of the goods to the CHA. When it is so, then CHA cannot be penalised.
Penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1525
Applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) and (3) read with Section 194C - HELD THAT:- Revenue’s appeal had to be examined on its merits as to the applicability or otherwise of Section 194C of the Act in the facts of the case.
Legality of re-assessment proceedings - HELD THAT:- There cannot be per se conclusion that failure to furnish reasons would invariably invalidate all the assessment proceedings. The assessee concededly reiterated its returns previously filed; the assessee was put on sufficient notice – in the sense, if, it felt aggrieved, it could have approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for an order compelling the Revenue to disclose the reasons. More crucially, the judgment of the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] no doubt directs the Revenue Authorities and Tax Administration to furnish copy of the “reasons” and also deal with the representations through a reasoned order. However, to characterise that requirement – though a matter of law, by raising Article 141 of the Constitution of India as mandatory and resulting in nullity of the reassessment proceedings, would be going too far. The Court notices that GKN Driveshafts (supra) has not been assimilated through statute. This aspect is important because in the absence of a consequence spelt out either by statute or through judgment, it cannot be said that invariably every assessee would suffer the same amount of prejudice as to nullify or invalidate the entire assessment proceedings; much will depend on the circumstances of the case.
In the present case, the assessee was issued with questionnaires calling for particulars, which it complied with. Especially therefore, there was no prejudicial consequence as is sought to be urged. For these reasons, the ground urged is not tenable and therefore rejected.
“Tangible material” to support the reassessment notice - the original assessment was completed or framed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Furthermore, the notice under Section 147 of the Act was issued within the four years period. Clearly, the framing of assessment itself does not result in judicial application of mind and an order, as held in Indu Lata Rangwala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [2016 (5) TMI 804 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
Furthermore, the Court recollects the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Zuari Estate Development and Investment Co. Ltd., [2015 (8) TMI 480 - SUPREME COURT] which clearly states that the filing under Section 143(1) of the Act does not result in any expression of judicial opinion. For these reasons, the second ground urged to attack the reassessment is rejected.
Additions on the grounds and facts other than on the issues for which reassessment notice was premised, and has not made additions on those grounds in the reassessment proceedings -
This Court specifically is of the opinion that the Karnataka High Court’s view in the case of N. Govind Raju [2015 (8) TMI 271 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] is a more accurate one. In this Court’s view the emphasis placed in Jet Airways’s case [2010 (4) TMI 431 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY] on “and also” undermines the essential objective of Section 147 of the Act and unduly restricts and narrows it. The circumstance clarifies existence of an additional power to bring to tax other sums. This per se would not mean that the sums or amounts sought to be brought to tax in a reassessment notice (which are ultimately not the subject of the final reassessment orders), act as a limitation.
Having regard to the facts, this Court is of the opinion that since there is some doubt as to the accuracy of the interpretation in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited [2011 (6) TMI 4 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and which was subsequently followed in the case of Monarch Educational Society [2016 (2) TMI 971 - DELHI HIGH COURT] the appropriate course would be to refer the issue to a larger Bench.
The following issue is accordingly framed for reference to the Full Bench i.e. whether the view expressed in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (supra) [following Jet Airways’s case (supra) of the Bombay High Court and followed later in Monarch Educational Society’s case (supra)] with respect to the interpretation of Section 147 read with Explanation (3) of the Act, is restrictive, so as to sustain only additions made in the course of reassessment proceedings subject to the additions of amounts adverted to in the reassessment notice in the “reasons to believe” under Sections 147/148 of the Act and notice pursuant thereof?
The office is directed to register the question as a reference and lay the papers before the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice subject to whose orders, the matter would be listed before the appropriate Full Bench.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1524
Benefit of Section 80P(2) on the interest earned on the deposits made by it to other cooperative banks and societies - business income or income from other sources - HELD THAT:- Reasoning given by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the matter of Tumkur Merchants [2015 (2) TMI 995 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] are clearly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. In our view therefore the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) r.w.s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. In view of the above, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1523
Legality of reference made to the DVO is u/s 55A - amendment made to Sec.55A(a) - HELD THAT:- When a specific provision under which the reference can be made to the Departmental Valuation Officer is available, there is no occasion for the Assessing Officer to invoke the general powers of enquiry.
We thus find that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has held that amendment to Proviso of Sec.55A(a) is applicable only w.e.f. 01.07.2012 and has no retrospective effect. Before us, Revenue has not placed any contrary binding decision in its support. We therefore relying on the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Puja Prints [2014 (1) TMI 764 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] are of the view that in the present case, AO was not justified in making a reference to the DVO. We therefore set aside the order of AO and thus the grounds of the assessee are allowed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1522
The National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad granted an extension of 90 days beyond the initial 180 days for the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) based on the resolution in the Fifth meeting of the Committee of Creditors (COC). The application was disposed of accordingly. (Citation: 2018 (1) TMI 1522 - National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad)
-
2018 (1) TMI 1521
Requirement of licence for displaying the Live Band Music in their restaurants - Clause 3 of the Order 2005 - Discrimination or not - principles of equality - "Salus Populi Supremo Lex" which means the safety of the people is the supreme law - "Salus republicae supremo lex" which means safety of the State is the supreme law.
HELD THAT:- It is the prime duty, rather statutory duty, of the Police personal/administration of every State to maintain and give precedence to the safety and the morality of the people and the State. Indeed, both are important and lie at the heart of the doctrine that the welfare of an individual must yield to that of the community. The Act and the Order 2005 are enacted keeping in view the safety and the morality of the people at large - whenever the impugned action is challenged on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, we have to keep in mind the well-settled principle of law laid down by this Court wherein this Court has examined lucidly and succinctly the scope and ambit of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) - Similarly, so far as Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is concerned, this Article accords fundamental rights to carry on any profession, occupation, trade or business. However, the right guaranteed under Clause (g) is made subject to imposition of appropriate reasonable restrictions by the State in the interest of general public under Clause (6).
As and when the question arises as to whether a particular restriction imposed by law under Clause (6) is reasonable or not, such question is left for the Court to decide. The test of reasonableness is required to be viewed in the context of the issues, which faced the impugned legislature. In construction of such laws and while judging their validity, the Court has to approach the issue from the point of furthering the social interest, moral and material progress of the community as a whole. Likewise, while examining such question, the Court cannot proceed on a general notion of what is reasonable in its abstract form nor the Court can proceed to decide such question from the point of view of the person on whom such restriction is imposed. What is, therefore, required to be decided in such case is whether the restrictions imposed are reasonable in the interest of general public or not.
If the Commissioner finds that the performances specified in proviso may also be brought within the ambit of the Order 2005 then he is always at liberty to include any such performance in Clause 3.
The Order 2005 does not suffer from any arbitrariness or unreasonableness and nor it infringes the fundamental right of the Appellant guaranteed Under Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1520
Disallowance towards set off of fictitious losses - Addition towards unexplained expenditure - survey proceedings u/s 133A - HELD THAT:- No spot verification u/s 131(1A) of the Act was carried out against the assessee and the addition was made merely on the basis general information. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in commodity market group of cases on 19/06/2007, wherein, as per the Revenue, some data pertaining to trade modification and client code changes of the brokers was collected.
Subsequently, survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on 25/03/2008 at the business premises of the assessee. The assessee offered additional income of ₹ 33,22,000/-. The whole case of the Revenue is that the assessee made huge client code modification resulting into loss of ₹ 2,88,55,000/-.
The case of the assessee is that all the transactions were made on recognized stock exchange, i.e. MCX, through authorized broker M/s Riddi Siddhi Bullions Ltd. and the assessee also furnished the code of contract note. CIT (Appeal) dully followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Income Tax Officer vs Pat Commodity Services Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (8) TMI 973 - ITAT MUMBAI] and Sambhava Investment Ltd. [2014 (1) TMI 84 - ITAT MUMBAI] and deleted the addition.
The revenue authorities ignored the reply to question no.9, wherein, the partner of the assessee denied of having made any request for any change in client code. The assessee also paid a margin money of ₹ 2.90 crores to RSBL which is evident from the statement of account of RSBL which has been adjusted against the losses of the assessee. Undisputedly, the transactions have done through recognized exchange and no evidence has been brought on record to defy the transaction by any denial from exchange authorities. Thus, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). Identical is the situation for deleting the addition towards unexplained expenditure. Resultantly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1519
Admitting of the additional evidences by the CIT(A) in violation of Rule 46A - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) never admitted any additional evidences which requires remanding to the AO’s file. It is merely a letter evidencing the existence of books of accounts in the possession of the AO. When the books of accounts are undisputedly lying with the AO for months, the assessing officer cannot allege that the books of accounts were not furnished by the assessee on this issue of addition of ₹ 4,35,741/-, we find the Ld.CIT(A) granted relief on the basis of the binding judgment of jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court.
Similar is the case with other additions deleted by the CIT(A). From this point of view, the contravention of the provisions of section 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 is not raised on correct facts. Revenue could not demonstrate, atleast one crucial document which goes to the root of the matter admitted by the CIT(A) at the back of the AO and without calling for remand report, if any. Therefore, grounds raised by the Revenue in this appeal have no merit. Since the Revenue fail on this legal issue, all the said grounds raised by the revenue have to be dismissed.
Addition on account of Foreign Travel Expenses - CIT-A deleted the addition - CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee - HELD THAT:- We find the reasoning given by the CIT(A) in his order is a well reasoned one. The amount of ₹ 10,000/- considered by the CIT(A) on account of hotel expenditure, as having sponsored by the insurance company needs no interference. It is also a fact that AO made the addition only on estimation basis.
Disallowance of interest expenditure - AO made addition as the amount which was paid by the assessee as interest on his borrowed loans - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) noted since the assessee has only shown total income of ₹ 3,20,000/-, the CIT(A) was of the opinion that only ₹ 2,00,000/- should be considered as working capital and accordingly, computed the interest paid on borrowings at ₹ 13,89,872/- on pro-rata basis which works out to ₹ 1,60,560/-. Thus, ₹ 1,19,818/- is upheld.
We find the conclusion given by the CIT(A) after taking into cognizance the capital account and balance sheet of the assessee is fair and reasonable and does not call for any interference. As such, we do not find any violation of provisions of section 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Ground No.3 raised by the revenue is therefore dismissed.
Undisclosed investment in properties - HELD THAT:- The property in question was purchased prior to the period of search and the AO made the addition on presumption basis. CIT(A) has appreciated the issue in the right perspective and deleted the addition. Thus, on merits, we find the order of CIT(A) is fair and reasonable
Regarding the additional evidence addition made by the Ld. AO. is unjustified and the Ld. CIT (A) is justified in deleting the said addition. Since, the purchase deed was produced before the Ld. AO. during the course of assessment proceedings, the question of calling for the remand report simply does not arise. Further I am enclosing herewith the copy of submission filed with the Ld. AO. wherein it is clearly stated that the Purchase deed of the said land was submitted in the paper book.
Foreign Travel expenses disallowed - AO disallowed the said expenses incurred by the assessee in connection with his travel to Singapore and Mauritius for want of details and the source of funds - HELD THAT:- As discussed in AY 2006-07 while dealing with similar addition, the sponsor Hero Motors had clearly mentioned that tickets have to be borne by the dealer. The appellant also denied of travelling of their sons to Mauritius and Singapore but did not furnish copy of their passport to support the claim. In the circumstances, the fact of travelling to Singapore and Mauritius has been brought by the AO on the record and for want of further details, he was left with no other option but to estimate the expenditure. However, AO had failed to give credit to the amount of ₹ 79,000/- debited the capital account of the appellant. Therefore, addition to the extent of ₹ 79,000/- is deleted and balance addition of ₹ 1,73,000/- is upheld. Grounds raised by the appellant is partly allowed
Accrual of income - addition of “interest income” on account of undisclosed income from FDR - HELD THAT:- Proper opportunity could not be granted to the appellant, and the AO without examining the computation of total income filed by the appellant along with the return of income filed on 08-08-2008 had assumed that interest on FDR kept with the UCO Bank was not offered to tax. As examined the computation of total income and it is seen that appellant has offered interest of ₹ 5,807/- as interest on FDR with the UCO Bank. Therefore, estimated addition of ₹ 6,000/- made on this ground stands deleted
Disallowance of interest expenditure - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) correctly held that the disallowance of interest is uncalled for considering the assessee’s own funds and the jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD. [2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]
Estimation of net profit @6% - HELD THAT:- Having considered the fact that AO was in possession of the books and there was no material with the AO to disturb the concluded assessment. CIT(A) also examined the letter received from the AO that the assessee produced books of account before him. Further, relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Murli Agro Products, [2010 (10) TMI 1052 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . CIT(A) deleted the entire addition. We have already dealt with the same issue while dealing with the issue of violation of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 - Considering reasoned finding of the CIT(A) on this issue, we uphold the order of CIT(A). As such, revenue has no reason for making addition
Addition on account of income from other sources (being 50% of the disclosed agricultural income) - Assessment u/s 153A - HELD THAT:- AO made the addition on estimation basis and there was no incriminating material gathered during the course of search. Therefore, we find the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition is reasonable. Thus, we uphold the order of CIT(A) and the ground No.4 raised by the revenue is dismissed.
Unrecorded advance receipt on account of sale of property to Shri Ashok Vijaykumar Kotecha (M/s. Chaudhari Motors) - addition deleted by the CIT(A) admitting additional evidence - HELD THAT:- No iota of fault in the reasoning given by the CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹ 1 crore. While deleting the addition, CIT(A) has considered all aspects; (1) Saudi pawtis dated 11-10- 2010 and 14-10-2010 (2) cancellation document (3) statement given by the assessee u/s.132(4) (4) confirmation of Shri Anil Kotecha cancelling the original transaction in response to the show cause notice issued by the AO. All these documents clearly suggest that the amount of ₹ 1 crore was returned back to Shri Anil Kotecha. Regarding the revenue’s allegation that the CIT(A) admitted certain additional evidences, we find that no specific document was specified by the Ld. DR for the Revenue before us which constitutes additional evidence. Regarding Sauda Pawti and the deed of cancellation, we find they exist in the files of the AO. Therefore, there is no violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 in this regard
Addition of short term capital gains - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- As find from the discussion of the CIT(A) reveal that ₹ 68,46,000/- is not the value as per the records of stamp duty authorities. The value of ₹ 68,46,000/- is the figure as per the registered valuer which is created for loan purpose and hence, it has no sanctity under the provisions of section 50C of the Act. It is the finding of CIT(A) that there is no evidence to demonstrate that the assessee received higher consideration than that of ₹ 29,63,800/-. On the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that addition of ₹ 38,82,200/- is unwarranted. Ground No.3 raised by the revenue is accordingly dismissed.
Addition on account of interest of purchase of land - addition deleted by the CIT(A) - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the loan is actually squared up by 01-04-2010 relevant to A.Y. 2011-12. No interest is accrued in principle due to the said squaring up of the loan. Notwithstanding the same, assessee has a strong capital base to the tune of ₹ 1.09 crores and the presumption laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. [2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] that no funds are utilized for payments towards investment in the land. Considering the above discussion given by the CIT(A) while deleting the addition, we find the order of CIT(A) is a well reasoned one and therefore, it does not call for any interference.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1518
Stay of demand - recovery proceedings - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the demand is for all the seven years put together nearly ₹ 200.00 Crs. against which the assessee had paid only ₹ 15.00 Crs, the assessee is granted an installment scheme of ₹ 7.00 Crs. per month representing an installment of ₹ 1.00 Cr. for each of the assessment years in respect of the appeals which the Stay Petitions have been filed.
The first installment is to be paid on or before 16.01.2018 and the subsequent installments to be paid on or before 15th of every succeeding month. The appeals of the assessee have been filed on 08.01.2018 and consequently, Registry is directed to post the appeals of the assessee on 19.03.2018. No notice to be issued to the parties as the order has been pronounced in the open court. Stay Petitions filed by the assessee are partly allowed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1517
Assessment u/s 153A - unexplained cash credits with respect to share capital as per the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) and on account of shares purchased by the assessee of a company for consideration less than the fair value of the share - HELD THAT:- We do not find any merit in the present appeal filed by the Revenue. The facts vis-à-vis both the appeal that search action was carried out on the assessee on 4.10.2012 and at the time of search action no assessment or reassessment proceedings were pending is undisputed. It is also not disputed that no incriminating documents or record or any other evidence was found or seized during the course of search proceedings which resulted in any addition in the case of the assessee. CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the addition made following various judicial pronouncements in this regard. Thus no incriminating material was found during search action and hence addition made was not justified - See MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP. M/S. FERNS ‘N’ PETALS [2017 (5) TMI 1224 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1516
Reopening of assessment - ITAT justification in treating the proceedings initiated u/S.147 r/w Sec.148 as ab-initio void - HELD THAT:- Tribunal while considering the matter has rightly relied upon the decision of this Court in CIT v. Ram Singh [2008 (5) TMI 200 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT]. The addition which was made was beyond the scope of Section 147 r/w Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal is required to be affirmed.
Issue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1515
Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions - respondent submitted that the petitioner is at liberty to file all the objections before the adjudicating authority under Section 26 of the Act, 1988, as the time limit is to file objection before the Initiating Officer has already elapsed, which was 90 days from the date of notice - also the petitioner has not filed any reply to the impugned SCN - HELD THAT:- Petition is dismissed holding that the provision of Section 26 of the Act, 1988 is complete code in itself providing ample opportunities to the assessee concerned, and apart from that there is remedy of appeal available to the petitioner.
Looking to the fact that the petitioner has not filed his reply till date, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file his reply before the adjudicating authority and take all such plea of law and facts as may be available to the petitioner before the adjudicating authority, who shall decide the same in accordance with law.
Petition dismissed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1514
Deduction u/s. 54B - absence of sufficient documentary evidence indicating that the agricultural land was used for agricultural purpose by the assessee or his parents, in the two years immediately preceding the date of transfer of asset - HELD THAT:- A perusal of observation made by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) with regard to ‘pictographic representation’ of land indicate that reference was made to the said site plan to indicate that the different Survey Nos. are contiguous pieces of land. This fact is evident from the site map which is at page 121 of the paper book. DR has not controverted that the said site plan at page 121 of the paper book was furnished before the Assessing Officer. Thus, objection raised by the Department alleging violation of Rule 46A is without any substance.
In so far as objection raised by the Revenue that assessee in his return of income has not disclosed agricultural income, it has been contented that agricultural produce from the land was mainly used for self consumption and as the income from sale of agricultural produce was less than ₹ 5000/-, therefore, the same was not reflected in the return of income. A perusal of 7/12 extract shows that during financial year 2009- 10, out of total land admeasuring 7H 44R, only 40R was under cultivation and in financial year 2010-11, only 1H 80R was cultivated. The assessee had cultivated groundnut and brinjal on the land. The assessee is having 1/4th share in total undivided land. We find merit in the submission of assessee. The income from agricultural activities may not be substantial so as to be considered for the rate purpose under the provision of the Act. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Debbie Alemao [2010 (9) TMI 560 - Bombay High Court] has held that if an agricultural operation does not result in generation of surplus, it cannot be a ground to say that the land was not used for the agricultural purpose.
Thus, in view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and accordingly, the same is upheld and appeal of Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
............
|
9911796707
