|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 1183 Records
-
2021 (6) TMI 943
Rejection of books of accounts - trading addition - AR submitted that the absence of stock register or low yield cannot be a ground for invoking of section 145(3) - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2019 (10) TMI 924 - ITAT JAIPUR] low production of oil from the oil seeds in comparison to the earlier years. We find variation in the yield ratio is very meager and in some of the cases it is less than 1%. Once the difference is very negligible which can be due to various factors and reasons including the quality of seed, oil contents in the seeds due to climate condition for a particular season which affects the quality of crop itself. Ignoring all these factors as explained by the assessee in the reply to the show cause notice of the A.O., the addition made by the A.O. and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is not justified.
CIT(A) has also not given any basis for sustaining the addition and therefore, such an ad hoc addition without specifying the basis is not permissible, accordingly, the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is deleted.
Disallowance of Telephone Expenses, Travelling Expenses, Building Repair & Maintenance Expenses and Office Expenses - HELD THAT:- As relying on own case except 10% of building repair and maintenance expenses, all other disallowances made by the A.O. and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) are hereby deleted and the ground is thus partly allowed.
Disallowance being @ 15%, out of the commission paid and claimed by the assessee - HELD THAT:- We find that under identical set of facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowances were made in the earlier A.Y 2012-13 and the same have been partly confirmed by the ld CIT(A) and the assessee has not filed any appeal against the said decision before the Tribunal and the matter has thus attained finality. Therefore, following the earlier decision of his predecessor CIT(A), where the ld CIT(A) for the impugned assessment year has restricted the disallowance to 15%, we don’t see any infirmity in the said decision and findings of the ld CIT(A) and are not inclined to interfere in the said findings and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee is thus dismissed.
-
2021 (6) TMI 942
Capital gain computation - addition made on the basis of valuation of DVO - AO accepted the report of DVO and worked out the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on the basis of rate suggested by DVO - assessee claimed deduction under section 54B of the Act of ₹ 13,75,300/-, thus, the AO after granting set off of deduction under section 54B made addition - HELD THAT:- The assessee sold a piece of land on 06.09.2011 along with his co-owner. Thus, the amended provision of section 55A(a) is not applicable for the year under consideration. Further, we find that the AO while making the reference to the DVO has not form an opinion that FMV adopted by assessee is not a fair value. As noted earlier, the amended provision under section 55A(a) is not applicable for the year under consideration, therefore, the reference made by AO was invalid.
As relying on GAURANGINIBEN S. SHODHAN INDL. [2014 (2) TMI 78 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and M/S. PUJA PRINTS [2014 (1) TMI 764 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the ground raised by assessee is allowed.
-
2021 (6) TMI 941
Impleadment in the application - fraud - HELD THAT:- Certain banks have initiated proceedings against the Corporate Debtor under the RBI Circular based on the Forensic Audit Report obtained by the Resolution Professional - Applicant who is the SRA of the Corporate Debtor may be concerned with the developments and interested in knowing the contents of the Forensic Audit Report and complaint to CBI relating to the happenings in the Corporate Debtor. It would be between the Financial Creditors and the SRA.
Application rejected.
-
2021 (6) TMI 940
Revival of company - working of the Company as a going concern - adverse effect on release from the liquidation - Regulation 32 of the Liquidation Process Regulations - HELD THAT:- Since the Liquidator has already accepted the bid for ₹ 15.30 Crores and the auction sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern is completed on 18.03.2021, no specific order or ratification of the sale is required. The action of the Liquidator is in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code and consequences thereof would follow according to law. Reiteration by the Tribunal is neither contemplated nor necessary - The promoters are permitted to restructure the Capital account as prayed for.
The Liquidator shall distribute the sale proceeds as per Section 53 of the Code - since already the purchase consideration is paid by the Applicants, the Applicants shall not have any more liability as far as the debts of the Corporate Debtor are concerned.
The existing share capital of the Corporate Debtor shall stand extinguished - the Applicants are required to approach the Authorities concerned for exemptions, if any, and the said Authorities will decide the issue in accordance with the law.
-
2021 (6) TMI 939
Sanction of Scheme of Amalgamation - Sections 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013 - Seeking dispensation and convening with various meetings - HELD THAT:- There are no objections to the Scheme and hence there is no impediment in the sanction of the Scheme. Therefore, the Scheme (Annexure A.1) is hereby approved. While approving the Scheme, it is clarified that this order should not be construed as an order in any way granting exemption from payment of any stamp duty, taxes, or any other charges, if any, and payment in accordance with law or granting permission in respect of any compliance with any other requirement which may be specifically required under any law. With the sanction of the Scheme, the Transferor Companies No. 1 to 9, shall stand transferred to and vested in the Transferee Company.
The scheme is approved - application allowed.
-
2021 (6) TMI 938
Approval of Scheme of Amalgamation - seeking directions for dispensing with the meetings of the Equity Shareholders, Secured Creditors and Unsecured Creditors of the Petitioner Companies - Sections 230 & 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- Considering the approval accorded by the members and creditors of the Petitioner Companies to the proposed Scheme and the affidavits/no objection filed by the respective regulatory authorities there appears to be no impediment in sanctioning the present Scheme Consequently, sanction is hereby granted to the Scheme under Section 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Petitioners shall however remain bound to comply with the statutory requirements in accordance with law including, but not limited to, Section 232 (3) (a) and Accounting Standard 14 as pointed by the Regional Director.
The scheme is approved - application allowed.
-
2021 (6) TMI 937
Maintainability of application filed u/s 333 of the Companies Act, 2013 - Applicant claiming tenancy of a shop room at the ground floor of the premises - disclaimer of the premises at No. 15, Lindsay Street, Police Station-New Market, Kolkata 700087 in favour of the applicant - HELD THAT:- This is ostensibly on the ground that onerous covenants supposedly are attached to the property. We are not required to go into the veracity of the commission agreement dated 13.11.2014. However, even from a bare reading of the commission agreement of 13.11.2014, which is the basis of such claim, there is nothing that can be attributed to the property itself, even if the commission agreement is taken at face value. It only casts a burden on the corporate debtor to make payments- that too if the commission agreement is otherwise sustainable in law - the prayer of the applicant for disclaimer of onerous covenants is hereby rejected.
Seeking order declaring that the premises at No. 15, Lindsay Street, Police Station-New Market, Kolkata 700087, is outside the scope of moratorium of the corporate debtor - HELD THAT:- While section 14 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is a broad-spectrum moratorium prohibiting all kinds of action against the corporate debtor, section 33(5) confines itself only to initiation of legal proceedings by or against the corporate debtor. The proviso to section 33(5) makes it clear that the liquidator may institute a suit or legal proceeding for and on behalf of the corporate debtor, after obtaining the prior approval of the Adjudicating Authority. There is no bar engrafted into section 33(5) which prohibits continuation of any pending suits or legal proceedings - In the present case, since the applicant has also instituted civil proceedings for various reliefs both in the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court as well as in the city civil court, there is no need for this Adjudicating Authority - this point was rejected.
Disbursement of claim admitted by the liquidator - HELD THAT:- This is not permissible until the liquidator process itself comes to an end. Therefore, this prayer is rejected.
Seeking direction to respondents to refund the amount collected from Vidhan Fashions on each and every month - HELD THAT:- This prayer cannot be granted without determining the issue of ownership and possession of the property. Since that issue is sub judice before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and the city civil court, this prayer is rejected.
Seeking direction to respondents to pay commission fee to the applicant - HELD THAT:- Since the claim of the applicant has already been adjudicated and admitted in full, all that is required to be done at this stage is to sit back and wait for the liquidation process to be completed, at the end of which disbursement will take place in accordance with law. Therefore, this prayer is rejected as premature at this stage.
Seeking order directing the respondents to give back vacant peaceful and actual khas possession of the said premises - HELD THAT:- This Adjudicating Authority had considered application bearing IA No. 138/2021, in which an order dated 12.04.2021 was passed. It was directed that in view of contesting claims made regarding ownership and possession, the liquidator shall hand over physical possession of the premises to the person from whom the corporate debtor took possession, since the corporate debtor was not the owner of the premises. Accordingly, the liquidator has since handed over possession to Mr. Anil Arora, the applicant herein - Prayer has become infructuous.
Seeking direction to the liquidator for service of a copy of the application filed by the liquidator, and for an opportunity to be given to the applicant to file appropriate reply therein - HELD THAT:- The liquidator is the applicant in that application, and therefore, the dominus litus - This prayer in the present application is, therefore, refused.
Application disposed off.
-
2021 (6) TMI 936
Addition u/s 68 - Bogus share capital and share premium amount received - Addition on no proof to the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of share capital/ share premium - main plank on which the AO made the addition was because the directors of the share subscribers did not turn up before him - HELD THAT:- Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. [1986 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] and Rohini Builders[2001 (3) TMI 9 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has held that onus of the assessee (in whose books of account credit appears) stands fully discharged if the identity of the creditor is established and actual receipt of money from such creditor is proved. In case, the Assessing Officer is dissatisfied about the source of cash deposited in the bank accounts of the creditors, the proper course would be to assess such credit in the hands of the creditor (after making due enquiries from such creditor).
When a question as to the creditworthiness of a creditor is to be adjudicated and if the creditor is an Income Tax assessee, it is now well settled by the decision of the Calcutta High Court in M/S. DATAWARE PRIVATE LIMITED [2011 (9) TMI 175 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] that the creditworthiness of the creditor cannot be disputed by the AO of the assessee but the AO of the creditor.
Section 68 of the Act provides that if any sum found credited in the year in respect of which the assessee fails to explain the nature and source shall be assessed as its undisclosed income. In the facts of the present case, both the nature and source of the share application received was fully explained by the assessee. The assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants.
The PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments were placed on AO's record. Accordingly all the three conditions as required u/s. 68 of the Act i.e. the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction was placed before the AO and the onus shifted to AO to disprove the materials placed before him. Without doing so, the addition made by the AO is based on conjectures and surmises, cannot be justified - no addition was warranted under Section 68 of the Act. Therefore, we delete the addition made - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (6) TMI 935
LTCG - cost of acquisition of 925 shares of Somani & Company - Adoption of FMV - assessee has re–valued the fair market value as on 1st April 1981 - HELD THAT:- We are in agreement with the assessee that the assessee has an option to replace the value of market value as on 1st April 1981 as per section 55(2)(b)(i) of the Act and also the judicial precedence suggest that wealth tax valuation cannot be adopted for Income Tax purpose.Assessing Officer cannot fully rely upon the value declared for wealth tax purpose in Income Tax assessment. Even the learned CIT(A) accepted provisions of rule 1D of the Wealth Tax rules.
We are in agreement that the assessee can adopt fair market value based on the re–valuation of the assets held by the company as on 1st April 1981. Further, we note that the learned CIT(A) observed that even under rule 11UA of the I.T. Rules, the fair market value of the un–quoted equity shares shall be calculated based on the net assets as per the Balance Sheet and re–valuation in the Balance Sheet is not permitted.
We notice that no doubt the assessee has re–valued the fair market value as on 1st April 1981, at ₹ 3,833 per share and we also notice that the assessee has purchased 2,000 shares @ ₹ 1,250 per share in assessment year 2003–04 and we notice that the assessee has claimed indexed cost based on this valuation only. Therefore, it is impractical to calculate the value of un–quoted equity shares @ ₹ 3,833, as on 1st April 1981 and the same shares valued and purchased at ₹ 1,250 per share in the assessment year 2003–04.
Since the assessee has not submitted Balance Sheet as on 1st April 1981 of the company M/s. Somani & Co. Pvt. Ltd., in our considered view, the assessee intend to adopt ₹ 3,883, on 1st April 1981, and at the same time, the assessee cannot claim the value for the assessment year 2003–04 at ₹ 1,250. Therefore, in our considered view, the best possible option available to the assessee is only to adopt the value of fair market value in assessment year 2003–04 and re–calculate by adopting reverse indexation to determine the value as on 1st April 1981. Therefore, the value of each share will be @ ₹ 1,250 x ₹ 100 ÷ 463 = ₹ 270 per share. Since the Assessing Officer cannot adopt the value as per wealth tax valuation considering the judicial precedent, we deem it fit to direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the fair market value as on 1st April 1981 @ ₹ 270 per share.
As assessee prayed to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to refer this matter to the valuation officer. In view of our above observations, we do not see any reason to refer this issue to the valuation officer at this stage. Accordingly, ground no.2, is partly allowed.
Reference to DVO - Deemed sale consideration (being the market value on which stamp duty is paid) as against agreement value and the amount actually received - HELD THAT:- We notice that even in case of Mahalaxmi Rope Works Ltd [2019 (3) TMI 1889 - ITAT MUMBAI] stamp duty authorities have applied TDR @ 140% and upon agitation the issue was referred to the DVO and the DVO has valued the property without applying the TDR. Since the issue under consideration is similar to the issue in Mahalaxmi Rope Works Ltd. (supra) case, therefore, in our considered view, for the sake of justice, we restore this issue also to the file of the Assessing Officer and also direct him to refer this case to the DVO and adopt the value based on the report of the DVO to determine the actual capital gains as per law. Accordingly, ground no.3 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Disallowance of deduction u/s 54F - assessee failed to provide any documentary proof that he had invested / purchased a new property - HELD THAT:- Assessee had entered into escrow arrangement with a clear purpose of purchasing the above said flat and accordingly and based on the agreement with the buyer of the land, the assessee has left a portion of the sale consideration in escrow arrangement.
When the taxing authorities intend to tax the whole sale consideration as taxable consideration which includes the portion of the cost of flat then the assessee has deemed to have paid for the flat as purchase consideration. We notice that the Assessing Officer has taken a stand that in order to claim deduction under section 54F of the Act, the assessee has to demonstrate documentary evidences of the new property and the assessee should have invested / purchased new residential property within the prescribed time. We notice that in this situation the assessee has already kept the agreed settlement amount for purchase of flat with buyer of the land and accepted to receive the promised allotted flat within the prescribed time. Since there was a dispute between the assessee and the builder the flat was not allotted to the assessee within the prescribed time. We notice that the Courts have held that when the assessee performs his part of the duty before the prescribed time and incase there is a reasonable delay or default on the part of builder and failed to comply the agreement within the prescribed time and when the assessee demonstrated the reasonableness of the time frame of investment then the Courts have taken liberal view in giving deduction under section 54F - in the given case the assessee has not received sale consideration to the extent of value of flat and there is no mistake on the part of the assessee, therefore the assessee had paid full purchase consideration for flat, therefore, the assessee is eligible for the claim under section 54F.
-
2021 (6) TMI 934
Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - invalid notice u/s 274 - HELD THAT:- Penalty cannot be imposed merely on the ground that additions made in the income of the assessee have been confirmed. Rather, to proceed with the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c), the AO has to prove that there was concealment of particulars of income or that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.
A bare perusal of the notice issued to the assessee u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act goes to prove that assessee has not been called upon to explain if she has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. See M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY & OTHS., M/S. V.S. LAD & SONS, [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]
We are of the considered view that since the assessee has not been specifically made aware of the charges leveled against her as to whether there is a concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on her part, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable.See Sahara’s case [2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld.First Appellate Authority and direct the AO delete the penalty. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2021 (6) TMI 933
Validity of assessment u/s 153A(1)(b) - no valid approval granted u/s 153D - HELD THAT:- The approval granted u/s 153D of the Act suffers from various infirmities and same is not in accordance with the letter and spirit of the law and is liable to be quashed. As we have negated the approval u/s 153D, the assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the act stands vitiated for want of approval u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the additional grounds are allowed.
-
2021 (6) TMI 932
Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice u/s 274 - assessee has challenged the impugned order contending that the show-cause notice issued by the AO is not a valid notice to initiate the penalty proceedings as the assessee has not been made aware as to whether he has concealed the particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income - HELD THAT:- A bare perusal of the notice issued to the assessee u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) goes to prove that assessee has not been called upon to explain if it has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.
We are of the considered view that when the assessee has not been specifically made aware of the charges leveled against it as to whether there is a concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on its part, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable. Recently, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court M/S. SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. [2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has approved the order of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sahara India Life Insurance [2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
Respectfully following the judicial precedents as aforementioned, we set aside the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority and direct the AO delete the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (6) TMI 931
Condonation of delay - “sufficient cause or reason” of delay - HELD THAT:- The assessee has been vigilant in his approach and has not neglected the Income Tax proceedings. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan 1998 (9) TMI 602 - SUPREME COURT] has observed that the length of delay is immaterial. The acceptability of the explanation is the only criteria for condoning the delay. In a given case, delay of the shortest period of time may be un-condonable due to unacceptable explanation, whereas in certain other cases, delay of a long period can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory.
In every case of delay, there might be some omissions or negligence on the part of the assessee but to our mind such omission/negligence has to be weighed in light of facts and circumstances of each case. If the negligence or omission is a by-product of a deliberate attempt with mala fide intention for delaying the process of litigation which could give some benefit to the litigant, then probably the delay would not deserve to be condoned. However, if no mala fide can be attributed to the delay, the delay will be condonable. Therefore, on the facts of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has been able to demonstrate sufficient reasons, in the shape of approaching wrong remedy, for filing an appeal before the Tribunal.
Levy of penalty u/s 271(1) (c) - defective notice u/s 274 - HELD THAT:- A bare perusal of the notice issued to the assessee u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act goes to prove that assessee has not been called upon to explain if he has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. we are of the considered view that when the assessee has not been specifically made aware of the charges leveled against him as to whether there is a concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on his part, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable - See M/S. SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. [2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2021 (6) TMI 930
Deduction u/s 80IA (4) (iii) - interest income shown by the assessee was the part of profit attributable to the business of the assessee and it was not derived from the business activities - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has returned a categorical finding after duly considering all the facts of the case. The Ld. CIT(A) has referred to a letter dated 13th February, 2013 emanating from the Office of Principal Secretary, Industrial Development, wherein it has been specifically stated that the allotment of plots and collection for the same is to done by the assessee as part of the management of the Industrial Park and therefore, all the money collected for such allotment has to be considered as being derived from the business of running of industrial park.
As been noted by the Ld. CIT(A) that the amounts which were specifically due for payment to the Government were shown as liabilities in its account and the balance was taken as receipts for the purposes of computation of eligible income.
CIT(A) has also referred to the notification issued by the CBDT in respect of deduction u/s 80IA for industrial park and has, thereafter, come to the conclusion that the assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 80IA even on the amount disallowed by the AO. DR has, although, vehemently argued against the finding returned by the CIT(A), he could not controvert the findings of fact as recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. DR also could not point out any error in law in the impugned order.
CIT(A) has also referred and relied on the judgment passed in the case of CIT vs. Govinda Choudhary & Sons, [1992 (4) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that the interest receipt on delayed payment cannot be separated from the other amounts granted to the assessee under the awards and, hence, cannot be treated as income from other sources. As laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in this case that amount awarded to the Contractor assessee as interest for delay in payment of his dues took the same character as the receipts for payment of which he was otherwise entitled under the contract and, therefore, the same was taxable as business income and not as income from other sources. We find no error on such reliance by the Ld. CIT(A).
Similarly, ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Jaiparkash Hydro Power Ltd. [2013 (6) TMI 478 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] has held that when interest is received on account of delayed payment from customers, it would definitely constitute income from eligible business income because such interest had direct nexus with receipt from eligible business and, therefore, deduction u/s 80IA of the Act would be admissible.
In the case of CIT vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. [2013 (7) TMI 697 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], while considering the allowability of deduction u/s 80 IB of the Act, held that interest income on late recovery of sale proceeds from debtors was eligible for deduction u/s 80IB - Interest receipt on delayed payments has been held to be business income.
It is our considered opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IA and we have no reason to interfere with the same. We uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the Department.
-
2021 (6) TMI 929
Validity of Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - eligibility to claim exemption u/s 10(26BBB) - notice u/s 148 issued after expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year - HELD THAT:- It is apparent that action u/s 147 was solely for the purpose of enhancing the disallowance of claim of exemption u/s 10(26BBB) already made in the original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961, which in our view, is impermissible and not in accordance with spirit of section 147 of the Act. The reasons recorded fail to satisfy the dual jurisdictional requirements as per law.
We find to difficult to concur with reasoning given by the Ld. CIT (A) while upholding the validity of notice u/s 148 which is not in consonance with established legal principles as discussed above. In view of the above discussion, we are of considered view that notice u/s 148 dated 22/01/2015 is vitiated on dual count of change of opinion as well as first proviso to section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and same is hereby quashed. Resultantly, the re-assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/147 and addition made therein also gets annulled.
-
2021 (6) TMI 928
Capital gain computation - land was under the ULC Act - section 50C application - HELD THAT:- As per date of sale, the land was under the ULC Act and the state legislature repealed on 27.3.2008 and thereafter division of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, the state government issued a Memo on 11.7.2012 declaring that the property does not attract the provisions of ULC Act and thereafter the Tahsildar vide letter dt. 24.5.2014 allowed the construction on the land. There is no infirmity in the order of CIT(Appeals). Therefore we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.
-
2021 (6) TMI 927
Rectification of mistake - apparent error in the order of the Tribunal as the issue of the addition made on account of unaccounted transactions with M/s Fortune Group was adjudicated - HELD THAT:- From contents of Miscellaneous Application filed at the instance of Revenue stating that there is an apparent error in the order of the Tribunal as the issue of the addition made on account of unaccounted transactions with M/s Fortune Group was adjudicated without considering the fact that M/s Fortune Builders in its application to Income Tax Settlement Commission has taken a plea that addition on the basis of alleged diary BS-1 have been made in the case of M/s Soumya Homes Pvt. Ltd and therefore no addition of income was offered before Income Tax Settlement Commission.
We however on perusal of the records placed before us find that during the course of hearing of appeal sufficient opportunity was granted to the revenue to file its documents. However revenue failed to file any such detail before this Tribunal of the application of M/s Fortune Builders made before the Income Tax Settlement Commission.
Since the Tribunal has dealt with all the relevant facts and settled judicial precedents to adjudicate the issue in question before us, we find no mistake apparent on record in the impugned order and thus no rectification is called for. We therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the case find no merit in the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue and the same deserves to be dismissed.
-
2021 (6) TMI 926
Addition u/s 68 - bogus LTCG to claim exemption u/s 10(38) - HELD THAT:- No documentary evidence to prove that the assessee was indulged in managing the affair of providing accommodation entry - Appeals deserves to be allowed on merits of the case, conditions for claiming exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act were fulfilled with regard to the sale transaction and the evidence so produced in support thereof has not been controverted by the revenue authorities. Thus the common grounds raised on merits by both assessee are allowed.
-
2021 (6) TMI 925
Bogus LTCG - penny stock purchases - genuineness of claim of exempt income u/s 10(38) of the Act from Long Term Capital Gain ( In short ‘LTCG) arising from sale of equity shares - HELD THAT:- We note that the original purchase of equity share of Conart Traders Limited was made on 17.9.2011 and this company was subsequently merged to “M/s Sunrise Asian Limited” by the order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court and assessee received the converted equity shares of “M/s Sunrise Asian Limited” in their Demat account. Thereafter during the year under appeal the shares were sold through recognized stock exchange at the price appearing on the portal of the exchange. The shares were transferred from Demat account and consideration was received. All the evidences in support of above stated transactions have been filed before the lower authorities and their genuineness are not in doubt.
As relying on Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan [2020 (8) TMI 405 - ITAT MUMBAI] “Sunrise Asian Limited” is neither a penny stock nor a paper company, are of the considered view that as all the five assessee(s) namely Kumari Ayushi Nyati ,Smt. Vijay Nyati, Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Nyati (HUF), Shri Manish Kumar Radheshyam Nyati (HUF), Smt. Mamta Nyati have discharged necessary onus casted upon them in terms of claim of exemption of Long Term Capital Gain u/s 10(38) of the Act by establishing the genuineness of transaction of purchase and sale of shares and satisfying the requisite conditions specified therein and the Long Term Capital Gain so arisen has been rightly claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. Since we have held the transaction of Long Term Capital Gain as genuine no addition for estimated brokerage expense is thus called for in the case of Miss. Ayushi Nyati. We therefore allow the common issues raised in all the instant appeals in favour of the assessee(s) and set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and allow the claim of LTCG exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act from sale of equity shares of “SAL” and delete the addition. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (6) TMI 924
Addition u/s 68 and 69C - transactions in penny stock income of which was claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) - CIT(A) in his ex parte order, upheld the additions made by the AO - submission of the assessee that no proper opportunity was granted by the CIT(A) and in the interest of justice the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate his case - HELD THAT:- Although letter for adjournment was filed by the assessee on ‘dak’ counter of CIT(A) on 22.11.2018, however, there is no mention of any acceptance or rejection of the same by the ld. CIT(A).
In the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the CIT(A) and substantiate his case without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the ld.CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
............
|
9911796707
