Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2012 2012 (4) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 241 to 260 of 782 Records

• 2012 (4) TMI 603
  
  Issues involved: The judgment deals with accommodation bills issued by M/s. Swen Television Ltd. for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08.
  
  For assessment year 2006-07:
  The assessee filed its return declaring total income. Search and seizure operations revealed accommodation bills issued by companies connected to Shri S.K. Gupta. The AO conducted a survey and found group companies controlled by Shri S.K. Gupta issuing bills to the assessee. The assessee offered a sum for taxation but disputed certain bills as accommodation entries. The AO disallowed an expenditure of a specific amount due to lack of vital documents. The Ld. CIT(A) found that M/s. Swen Television Ltd. had actually rendered advertising services to the assessee, leading to the deletion of the disallowance.
  
  For assessment year 2007-08:
  The facts were identical to the previous year, and the findings of the earlier year were applied. Both appeals were dismissed based on the above considerations.
  

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 602
  

  Foreign exchange fluctuation - Held that:- Loss suffered by an assessee on account of fluctuation in the rate of foreign exchange as on the date of balance sheet is an item of expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

  Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- It is not in dispute that tax has been deducted at the applicable rates and the same has been remitted before due date of filing of the return. Sufficient compliance has been made after tax is remitted before the due date of filing of return.

  Disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D to 5% of dividend income earned - Held that:- CIT(A) after examining the facts of the case and submissions of the parties has rightly held that 5% of the dividend income would be reasonable expenditure to earn the dividend income of ` 2,13,19,656/- thereby restricting disallowance to ₹ 10,65,980/-. In view of our above findings, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal as well.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 600
  
  Issues involved:
  The judgment deals with the issue of whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the appellant to make a pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal filed against the order in original. It also addresses the question of whether collecting toll on specified highways constitutes a business auxiliary service and whether it should be subject to service tax.
  
  Details of the Judgment:
  
  Issue 1: Pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal
  The appellant, a private limited company engaged in road construction and toll collection, was directed by the Tribunal to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 45,00,000 for appealing against a demand notice for service tax. The Tribunal justified this pre-deposit based on the approximate tax demanded. However, the High Court held that the Tribunal's decision was not appropriate. The Court emphasized that the NHAI's function of managing national highways and collecting toll might be a sovereign function of the State, and therefore, the appeal should be heard on merit without any pre-deposit, subject to the appellant executing a bond to pay the tax and penalty if confirmed by the Tribunal.
  
  Issue 2: Classification of collecting toll as a business auxiliary service
  The Tribunal classified the service of collecting toll on national highways as a business auxiliary service, subject to service tax. The High Court observed that the nature of this activity, whether sovereign or business-related, needed further examination. Referring to a previous case, the Court highlighted that collecting toll tax on behalf of a Municipal Corporation was considered a sovereign function. The Court directed the Tribunal to hear the appeal on its merits without pre-deposit, considering the nature of toll collection and the requirement to deposit toll amounts into the government treasury.
  
  Conclusion:
  The High Court quashed the Tribunal's order for pre-deposit and directed the Tribunal to hear the appeal on its merits without any pre-deposit, subject to the appellant providing a bond to pay the tax and penalty if confirmed. The Court emphasized the need for further examination on whether collecting toll constitutes a business auxiliary service or a sovereign function, indicating that this question should be decided during the final hearing of the appeal.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 599
  
  Issues involved: Seizure of consignment in transit, deviation from disclosed route, presumption of goods meant for sale in U.P., validity of seizure order, authenticity of documents and information.
  
  Summary:
  The consignment of 18 rolls of paper, in transit from Haryana to Bihar via U.P., was seized in Kanpur for allegedly deviating from the disclosed route, raising suspicion of intended sale in U.P. The revisionist challenged the seizure under Section 48(7) of the U.P. VAT Act, contending that the goods were accompanied by prescribed documents and there was no deviation. The respondent argued that the vehicle's presence in Kanpur's market area justified the presumption of intended sale in U.P. as per relevant provisions.
  
  The Court analyzed Section 52 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act and Rule 58, emphasizing the requirement of prescribed documents for goods passing through U.P. The Transit Declaration Form, accompanied by the goods, specified the route through U.P., including Kanpur. As the documents were in order, the seizure was deemed unjustified. The driver's uncontroverted affidavit confirmed the consignment's destination as Bihar, further supporting the revisionist's case.
  
  Regarding the authenticity of information about the selling dealer in Haryana and the purchasing dealer in Bihar dealing in plastic goods, the Court noted the lack of substantiated evidence or inquiry, undermining the department's claims. Citing precedents, the Court emphasized that seizure should occur only at the exit check post and goods cannot be seized prematurely.
  
  Ultimately, considering the legal provisions, documentation, and lack of concrete evidence supporting the presumption of intended sale in U.P., the Court set aside the seizure order and directed the release of the goods. The revision was allowed, ruling in favor of the revisionist.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 598
  
  Issues Involved:
  The petitioner filed an appeal against the income tax assessment order for the year 2009-2010 and sought relief from being treated as in default for payment of tax.
  
  Income Tax Assessment Appeal:
  The petitioner filed an appeal, Ext.P2, against the income tax assessment order for the year 2009-2010. The assessing authority directed the petitioner to pay the balance tax in instalments, which the petitioner contested, claiming to have already paid substantial amounts towards the tax assessed. Citing a judgment from the High Court of Allahabad in Ext.P7, the petitioner argued that recovery proceedings should be stayed pending appeals. The petitioner sought a writ to quash the order granting instalments and to direct the Commissioner of Income tax to dispose of the appeal early, preventing the petitioner from being treated as an assessee in default.
  
  Court's Decision:
  The court noted that the petitioner has the option to file a stay petition in the appeal pending before the appellate authority. Consequently, the court directed the petitioner to file an application for stay within one week. The Commissioner of Income tax was instructed to consider and pass orders on the application within one month. Until a decision is made, coercive recovery of the balance tax shall be suspended as per the assessment order.
  
  This judgment emphasizes the importance of following the proper legal procedures in challenging income tax assessments and seeking relief through the appropriate channels provided by the law.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 597
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of reopening assessment u/s 148.
  2. Disallowance u/s 35D.
  3. Disallowance u/s 14A.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Validity of Reopening Assessment u/s 148
  - The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the CIT (A) for the assessment year 2000-01, challenging the reopening of assessment finalized on 31.3.2003.
  - The Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 148 on 31.3.2005 for reasons including changes in accounting methods, deductions u/s 35D, calculation of deduction u/s 80HHF, and verification of dividend payment.
  - The CIT (A) set aside the reassessment order, finding that no income had escaped assessment, the reopening was based on audit objections, proceedings u/s 263 had been dropped, and there was no reason to believe for reopening.
  - The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s order, stating that reopening based on audit objections is impermissible and constitutes a mere change of opinion without fresh material.
  
  Issue 2: Disallowance u/s 35D
  - For the assessment year 2002-03, the Assessing Officer disallowed expenses u/s 35D, citing that the expenditure was incurred after the commencement of business.
  - The CIT (A) deleted the disallowance, stating that the claim pertained to earlier assessment years and not the year under consideration.
  - The Tribunal agreed with the CIT (A), noting that once a claim is accepted u/s 35D, it cannot be withdrawn in later years, and the case law cited by the Revenue was not applicable.
  
  Issue 3: Disallowance u/s 14A
  - The Assessing Officer disallowed interest u/s 14A, attributing part of the borrowed funds to investment in shares.
  - The CIT (A) deleted the disallowance, finding no expenditure relatable to exempt income for the year under consideration.
  - The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, noting that investments were made before accepting deposits, and the Revenue failed to provide material to counter the CIT (A)'s findings.
  
  Conclusion:
  - The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for the assessment years 2000-01, 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05, upholding the CIT (A)'s orders on all issues.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 596
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, granting input service credit to the applicant for services like CHA, transportation, banking charges, etc., in their manufacturing business. The decision was based on a previous ruling by the Bombay High Court. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with waiver of pre-deposit.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 595
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Annulling the assessment by CIT(A).
  2. Ignoring recorded satisfaction by AO for issuing notice u/s 158BD.
  3. Application of the Manish Maheshwari case ratio.
  4. Validity of notice or assessment u/s 292B.
  5. Restoration of AO's order.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Annulling the assessment by CIT(A):
  The Revenue appealed against the order of CIT(A)-I, Agra, which annulled the assessment. The CIT(A) found that the AO did not record the necessary satisfaction required u/s 158BD before initiating proceedings against the assessee. The CIT(A) relied on the Supreme Court decision in Manish Maheshwari vs. ACIT, which mandates recording satisfaction before initiating proceedings u/s 158BD.
  
  2. Ignoring recorded satisfaction by AO for issuing notice u/s 158BD:
  The AO initiated proceedings u/s 158BD based on documents found during a search at M/s. Jain Industries. However, the CIT(A) noted that the AO admitted no reasons for recording satisfaction were traceable. The CIT(A) concluded that the proceedings were invalid as the mandatory satisfaction was not recorded.
  
  3. Application of the Manish Maheshwari case ratio:
  The Revenue argued that the facts of the present case differed from Manish Maheshwari, as the AO had jurisdiction over both the searched person and the assessee. However, the CIT(A) held that the requirements of section 158BD were not satisfied, as no satisfaction was recorded, making the proceedings invalid.
  
  4. Validity of notice or assessment u/s 292B:
  The Revenue contended that even if there were mistakes or omissions in the notice or assessment, they should not be invalidated if they conform to the intent and purpose of the Act, as per provisions u/s 292B. However, the CIT(A) found that the lack of recorded satisfaction was a substantive issue, not a mere procedural defect.
  
  5. Restoration of AO's order:
  The Revenue sought to vacate the CIT(A)'s order and restore the AO's order. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO's failure to record satisfaction meant the requirements of section 158BD were not met. The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal, finding no merit in the Revenue's arguments.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal dismissed the departmental appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to annul the proceedings u/s 158BD due to the AO's failure to record the necessary satisfaction. The Tribunal found no justification to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, as the requirements of section 158BD were not satisfied.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 594
  

  Jurisdiction to frame assessment u/s 158BC - Held that:- The Director of Income-tax (Inv.) Chandigarh, issued Warrant of Authorization, dated 22.05.2002, u/s 132(1) of the Act in the name of Smt.Mohinder Kaur of M/s Lada Liquors Ltd., H.No. 694, Sector 8, Chandigarh. The said authorization was executed on 23.05.2002.

  The AO framed Block Assessment order u/s 158BC of the Act, on 22.08.2005, in the status of 'individual' determining undisclosed income at ₹ 9,02,13,220/- for the block period commencing from 1.4.1996 to 23.5.2005.

  Another block assessment order was framed by the AO u/s 158BC on 22.8.2005 of the Act in the status of 'Individual', determining the undisclosed income of the same block period at ₹ 8,57,15,730/-. As no Warrant of Authorization u/s 132(1) of the Act was issued, in the name of Smt.Mohinder Kaur, L/H of Late Shri Taranjit Singh W/o Shri Taranjit Singh, block assessment cannot be framed u/s 158BC of the Act in such status. Hence, the impugned block assessment order is bad in law and without jurisdiction.

  Revenue has also failed to adduce any evidence demonstrating the factum of recording of satisfaction within the meaning of Section 158BD r.w. Section 158BC of the Act.

  In view of the above discussions, the impugned Block Assessment order, which is under challenge, in the C.O. in question, has been passed without jurisdiction.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 593
  
  Issues involved: Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for Assessment Year 2005-2006 regarding the applicability of section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
  
  Question of Law:
  1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in quashing the order passed u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act?
  2. Whether the assessment made by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue?
  3. Whether galvanization and CR strips activity amount to manufacturing as per Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act?
  4. Whether the activity carried out by the Assessee can be considered as a type of process and not manufacturing?
  
  Summary of Judgment:
  The assessee declared a nil total income for Assessment Year 2005-2006 and claimed benefits under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act for manufacturing galvanized steel tapes and cold Rolled (CR) strips. The Assessing Officer allowed the claim, but the Commissioner of Income Tax set aside the order under section 263. The Tribunal evaluated the manufacturing process and considered the input-output materials. It noted the distinct uses of final products in different industries and concluded that a new product emerges during manufacturing. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner should not have exercised jurisdiction under section 263, based on the material on record and Supreme Court precedents. The appeal was dismissed as it did not raise any substantial question of law, with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 592
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Addition u/s 68 as unexplained cash credits.
  2. Disallowance of depreciation on plant & machinery.
  3. Addition of cash deposits as unexplained income.
  4. Disallowance of advertisement expenses.
  5. Disallowance of repair expenses.
  6. Disallowance of ISO certification expenses.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Addition u/s 68 as unexplained cash credits:

  The AO added Rs. 42,93,350/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68, questioning the financial capacity and genuineness of transactions of certain share applicants. The CIT(A) deleted the addition citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Lovely Exports Ltd., which held that if the identity of the subscribers is established, no addition can be made u/s 68. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing that the assessee is not obliged to prove the source of source and the evidence provided prima facie established the receipt of share application money.

  2. Disallowance of depreciation on plant & machinery:

  The AO disallowed Rs. 48,34,428/- of depreciation, questioning the installation and use of machinery before 30/09/2005. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, noting evidence of trial production and sales before the specified date. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming that the machinery was installed and used before 30/09/2005.

  3. Addition of cash deposits as unexplained income:

  The AO added Rs. 30,35,408/- as unexplained income, doubting the cash sales deposited in Mumbai bank accounts. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the sales were recorded and credited to the P&L account, and the auditors did not report any discrepancies. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no basis for the AO's addition.

  4. Disallowance of advertisement expenses:

  The AO disallowed Rs. 9,66,592/- of advertisement expenses, considering them as philanthropic and religious. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, recognizing the promotional nature of the expenses. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, acknowledging the advertisement value of the expenses.

  5. Disallowance of repair expenses:

  The AO treated Rs. 7,19,400/- of repair expenses as capital expenditure. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, stating that the expenses were for normal repairs and maintenance. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the expenses were incurred to preserve the asset and did not create any enduring benefit.

  6. Disallowance of ISO certification expenses:

  The AO disallowed Rs. 29,500/- for ISO certification, considering it as capital expenditure. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, stating that the certification did not bring any enduring advantage. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, recognizing the immediate benefit of the certification to the assessee.

  In conclusion, the appeal by the revenue was dismissed.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 591
  
  The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal concerning a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, which was found to be barred by time. The Court found no error in the decision of CESTAT and dismissed the appeal.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 590
  
  The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal regarding the inclusion of godown rents, establishment expenses, incentives, STD calls, etc., for levy of Service Tax, citing a Board Circular that already covered the issue.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 589
  
  Issues involved:
  The issue involved in this case is the levy of State Sales Tax on auction sale of Tendu Leaves, whether it constitutes an intra State sale or an inter State sale under the Central Sales Tax Act 1956.
  
  Judgment Summary:
  
  The petitioner challenged the levy of State Sales Tax on auction sale of Tendu Leaves by the respondent Federation, arguing that it should not be subjected to tax under the State Act as it is an intra State sale. The Court noted that similar issues had been decided by the Supreme Court in a previous case, where it was held that the question of intra state sale or inter state sale must be determined based on the facts of each case in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. The Court directed the petitioner to file returns before the assessing authority, who would then adjudicate on the matter after providing an opportunity for a hearing.
  
  The learned counsel for both parties agreed to dispose of the present petition in similar terms as the previous case. Considering the Supreme Court's decision and the parties' submission, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file returns before the authority and raise all issues regarding intra state sale or inter state sale. The authority would then decide the matter based on facts and law, following the prescribed procedure.
  
  Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of with liberty to file returns before the concerned authority and raise relevant issues for determination regarding intra state sale or inter state sale, as appropriate, in accordance with the law and procedure.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 588
  

  Duty Drawback – EOU - appellant is a manufacturer and exporter of ready-made garments - he got the goods manufactured in the second appellant Unit, which is 100% EOU Unit by supplying duty paid raw materials to EOU Unit – alleged that as the first appellant manufactured goods in EOU Unit and thus exported the goods, is he not entitled to Duty Drawback under Section 75 of the Act.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 587
  
  Issues:
  1. Clarification sought by NTPC Ltd. regarding payment of CST and U.P. VAT.
  2. Statement made by Reliance Industries Ltd. regarding U.P. VAT demand based on the agreement terms.
  3. Customers' freedom to dispute and pursue remedies if they disagree with the demand.
  4. Assurance that the order's observations will not impact the High Court matter.
  5. Disposal of I.A. No.6 of 2012 filed by NTPC Ltd.
  6. Disposal of I.A. No.7 of 2012 filed by M/s. TATA Chemicals Limited.
  
  Analysis:
  1. NTPC Ltd. filed I.A. No.6 of 2012 seeking clarification on the order dated 24th February, 2012, along with the order dated 23rd January, 2012, concerning the payment of CST and U.P. VAT.
  2. Reliance Industries Ltd.'s senior counsel, Mr. Harish N. Salve, clarified that the demand for U.P. VAT from Reliance Industries Ltd. is rooted in the agreement terms (GSPA) between the parties, not in the Supreme Court's orders from January and February 2012.
  3. The Court emphasized that if any customers challenge this demand, they are entitled to dispute it and seek available remedies as per their rights.
  4. It was explicitly stated that any observations made in the present order would not influence the outcome of the ongoing matter before the High Court, ensuring the independence of the proceedings.
  5. Consequently, I.A. No.6 of 2012 filed by NTPC Ltd. was disposed of by the Court, providing the sought clarification and addressing the concerns related to CST and U.P. VAT payment.
  6. Additionally, I.A. No.7 of 2012, filed by M/s. TATA Chemicals Limited, was also disposed of by the Court, taking into account the clarifications and decisions made in relation to I.A. No.6 of 2012, thereby concluding the matter for TATA Chemicals Limited as well.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 586
  
  Issues involved: Appeal against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding treatment of income as agricultural income for assessment year 2003-04.
  
  Summary:
  
  The appeal was filed by the Department against the order of CIT(Appeals) allowing the income to be treated as agricultural income. The CIT(Appeals) had also confirmed a similar order for the assessment year 2001-02.
  
  First Issue:
  The first question raised was whether the Tribunal was justified in treating the entire income as agricultural income. The Court noted that the CIT(Appeals) had already considered all relevant materials and facts before accepting the income as agricultural.
  
  Second Issue:
  The second question raised was regarding the reliance on an earlier decision for the assessment year 2001-02. The Court was informed that the Department's appeal against the earlier decision had been dismissed by the Division Bench judgment, rendering the second issue moot.
  
  Therefore, as the earlier order had already been confirmed by the Division Bench, the Court found no substantial question of law for consideration and dismissed the appeal.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 585
  
  Issues involved: Seizure of goods imported in the State of U.P. due to absence of import declaration Form -38 as per Section 50 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008.
  
  Summary:
  The consignment of goods imported in the State of U.P. from Kolkata was detained on 31.3.2012, leading to the seizure of goods on 2.4.2012 after a show cause notice. The revisionists filed a representation under Section 48 (7) of the Act, which partially reduced the cash security demanded. Unsatisfied, they appealed to the tribunal, resulting in dismissal on 18th April 2012. Subsequently, a revision was filed under Section 58 of the Act challenging the orders.
  
  The goods were seized for not having the required import declaration Form -38 as mandated by Section 50 of the Act. Despite the absence of Form -38 during the initial check, the revisionists submitted the form on 2.4.2012, explaining that it was inadvertently left behind despite being obtained on 27.3.2012. The genuineness of the submitted Form-38 was not disputed. The purpose of issuing a show cause notice under Section 50 (4) is to provide an opportunity for the concerned party to rectify any discrepancies found during inspection before goods are seized.
  
  Referring to a previous case, it was established that if the necessary documentation, like the import declaration Form, is produced in response to a show cause notice before the seizure order is passed, the seizure of goods and demand for security are not justified. The current case aligns with this precedent. Therefore, as the authorities did not consider the impact of the submitted Form-38, the order of seizure was deemed legally unsustainable and was set aside.
  
  Consequently, the impugned orders from 2.4.2012, 31.3.2012, and 18.4.2012 were overturned, directing the immediate release of the goods without any security requirement. The revision was allowed.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 584
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Disallowance u/s 14A
  2. Treatment of Interest Income as Income from Other Sources
  3. Allocation of Expenses between Speculative and Non-Speculative Business
  4. Applicability of Explanation to Section 73(1)
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Disallowance u/s 14A:
  The assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 74,898 u/s 14A, arguing that Rule 8D was not applicable for the year under appeal as it is not retrospective, citing the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd (328 ITR 81) (Bom.). The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance based on reasonableness without addressing the applicability of the cited case law. The Tribunal, considering the smallness of the amount and the absence of direct expenditure, reduced the disallowance to Rs. 37,500, deeming it reasonable for half-year investment.
  
  2. Treatment of Interest Income as Income from Other Sources:
  The assessee contended that the interest income of Rs. 5,46,854 should be treated as business income. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's treatment of the interest income as income from other sources, noting that the assessee was not engaged in money lending and failed to demonstrate the business connection of the lending. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and rejected this ground of appeal.
  
  3. Allocation of Expenses between Speculative and Non-Speculative Business:
  The AO allocated Rs. 5,50,798 to speculative loss out of total common expenses of Rs. 13,76,995. The assessee argued against the allocation, claiming the business was composite and indivisible. The Tribunal, referencing the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Makhanlal Ram Swarup Vs CIT 61 ITR 214, upheld the need for allocation but adjusted the ratio to include all three activities (purchase and sale of shares, speculative loss in commodity, and income from derivative transactions). The revised allocation was Rs. 20,655 to speculative business, Rs. 13,08,145 to purchase and sale of shares, and Rs. 48,195 to derivative transactions.
  
  4. Applicability of Explanation to Section 73(1):
  The assessee argued that the loss in share trading should not be considered speculative under Explanation to Section 73(1). The Tribunal, relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Darshan Securities Pvt. Ltd., concluded that the gross total income mainly consisted of income from other sources, making Explanation to Section 73(1) inapplicable. Thus, the loss of Rs. 15,66,518 from share trading was not considered speculative, while the loss of Rs. 21,60,668 from commodity transactions was treated as speculative.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal was partly allowed, with adjustments made to the disallowance u/s 14A and the allocation of expenses, while the treatment of interest income and the applicability of Explanation to Section 73(1) were upheld as per the CIT(A)'s findings.

  ---

• 2012 (4) TMI 583
  
  Issues:
  Appeals from two different orders of CIT(A) for assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07; Identical issues in both appeals.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The Revenue challenged the CIT(A) orders on grounds of legality and deletion of addition and depreciation allowance on machinery purchased under TUFS.
  2. AO disallowed 50% depreciation claimed by assessee on machinery used for embroidery work on grey cloth; CIT(A) allowed claim citing relevant rules and resolutions.
  3. Revenue argued that TUFS rules did not include embroidery for higher depreciation; Assessee relied on circulars and precedents supporting eligibility.
  4. Assessee cited Ahmedabad Bench decisions and Supreme Court cases to support claim; Revenue disputed the validity of Ahmedabad Bench decisions.
  5. Tribunal found circulars and bank documents supporting eligibility for higher depreciation under TUFS for embroidery machinery.
  6. Tribunal upheld CIT(A) decision based on Ahmedabad Bench precedents and absence of contrary decisions; Dismissed Revenue's appeals for both assessment years.
  
  This judgment clarifies the eligibility criteria for claiming higher depreciation under TUFS for machinery used in textile industry activities. It emphasizes the importance of relevant circulars, precedents, and adherence to specific rules in determining depreciation allowances. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of TUFS rules and supporting documentation, ultimately upholding the CIT(A) orders and dismissing the Revenue's appeals for both assessment years.

  ---

1 ....91011121314151617........ 40