|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 2121 Records
-
2019 (2) TMI 1829
Bogus purchases - disallowance of 12.5% of the purchases treated as non-genuine - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) sustained the disallowance in view of the fact that the assessee accepted for the disallowance and in which case there is no grievance for the assessee.
As relying on RAMESHCHANDRA AND COMPANY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [1987 (1) TMI 39 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] where the assessee has made a statement of fact making admission for agreeing for addition/disallowance, assessee could have no grievance if the taxing authority taxes him in accordance with such statement. Therefore, respectfully following the same we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the assessee.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1828
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 or assessment u/s 153A - Validity of Reassessment on the basis of incriminating material found in search of third party - Provisions of s. 153C applicability which exclude the application of section147 and 148 - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, undisputedly, originally assessment proceedings were initiated against the present assessee u/s 153C read with section 153A of the Act which was completed vide order dated 30.12.2011 but the same were annulled by ld. CIT (A) vide order dated 28.08.2012 on the ground that proper course in this case was to initiate proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and make assessment accordingly. The said assessment u/s 153C read with section 153A was completed on the basis of some seized material/document LP-103 A-1 pages 30, which is a memorandum of understanding alleged to have been entered into between the assessees and M/s. R.B. Enterprises.
When provisions contained u/s 153C are applicable in this case to initiate assessment proceedings on the basis of seized material seized in case of some third party, notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and subsequent assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act is void ab initio and as such, assessment framed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act is liable to be quashed.
Following the mandate of section 153C and orders passed by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in cases of Rajat Shubra Chatterji vs. ACIT [2016 (7) TMI 258 - ITAT DELHI] and ITO vs. Arun Kumar Kapoor [2012 (6) TMI 403 - ITAT AMRITSAR], assessment framed in this case u/s 147/143 (3) of the Act on the basis of incriminating material unearthed in case of a third party is not sustainable, hence ordered to be quashed without entering into the merits of the case. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1827
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - petition challenged on the ground that OBC (Petitioner) had moved this petition under insolvency code without taking into confidence all other members of the consortium - HELD THAT:- The question of maintainability, as raised from the side of the Corporate Debtor, revolves around the terms & conditions enshrined in Third Supplemental Inter Se Agreement dated 27.01.2012. It is therefore necessary to examine the clauses of the said agreement with due care. It is undisputed that the Financial Creditor has entered into a Third Supplemental Inter Se Agreement dated 27.01.2012, with three other banks, wherein Dena Bank is the Lead Bank in the Consortium of Lenders. It is also undisputed that the Financial Creditor is well aware of the terms of the said agreement and is legally bound by the same.
The Financial Creditor has failed to produce 30 days' notice to the Lead Bank intimating about the present proceedings against the Corporate Debtor as required by the provisions of the agreement. Nor the Financial Creditor's move of discontinuing/withdrawing the credit facility given to the Corporate Debtor, without the consent or directions of the Lead Bank or other members of consortium was in consonance with the terms of the agreement. Hence, prima facie, it appears that the Financial Creditor has committed a breach of contract, therefore, it appears that the Financial Creditor is not entitled to file this petition.
IBC nowhere says that irrespective of all the contractual obligations, a financial creditor can file by itself without the knowledge/approval of other financial creditors. Rather, on reading of several clauses of consortium agreement, it is clear that all the members shall act in coherence with each other. In one of the clauses i.e. clause (n) it is provided that if a bank is desiring to opt out of the consortium, or want to reduce its share, has to offer his offer of quitting the consortium to other members of the agreement. In this case, the OBC /Financial Creditor has not exercised this option. While OBC remained a member of consortium, has taken this step which is prejudicial to the interest of rest of members. The Third Supplemental Inter Se Agreement is not in contravention in any of the provisions of IBC. So it will prevail over the decision of OBC and to be applied along with the provisions of IBC.
Granting of various loan facilities, is an intricate arrangement and the transactions are dove-tailed with each other, therefore, it is unethical to a member to keep in mind its own interest without taking due care of the interest of other parties to the consortium agreement. Hence, this contention of the Financial Creditor is cliche for deciding the fate of the present case, thus rejected.
This petition is 'Dismissed' on the ground of maintainability, with liberty to file a fresh petition in accordance with law.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1826
Jurisdiction - power of Tribunal to recall its own order - Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble NCLAT has repeatedly held that this Tribunal does not have the power to review its own order. In the circumstances, this Tribunal is constrained to dismiss the above application as it is not maintainable before this Tribunal under the provisions of IBC, 2016.
Let the CIRP as initiated against the Corporate Debtor be duly proceeded with. The period spent before this Tribunal from 10.01.2019 being the date on which stay was granted till today shall stand excluded - Application dismissed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1825
Disallowance u/s 14A - expenditure incurred in relation to the exempt income - HELD THAT:- The very process of determination of the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income would be triggered only if the A.O. returns a finding that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure. In fact, the A.O before discarding the claim of the assessee as regards the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to the exempt income remains under a statutory obligation to record cogent reasons as regards his dissatisfaction in respect of the said claim, before embarking upon the determination of the amount of expenditure in accordance with the method prescribed in Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. We find that our aforesaid view stands fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited [2017 (5) TMI 403 - SUPREME COURT] We therefore not being able to persuade ourselves to uphold the disallowance made by the A.O under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D.
Bogus purchases - Purchase from grey market - HELD THAT:- As the assessee had failed to substantiate the veracity of the purchase transactions under consideration, therefore, it can safely be concluded that the material was purchased by him at a discounted price from the open/grey market, as against that shown in its accounts. Insofar the estimation of the profit element is concerned, the same in our considered view can safely be taken at 12.5% of the aggregate value of purchases of ₹ 1,85,321/- in the backdrop of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth [2013 (10) TMI 1028 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - We thus in terms of our aforesaid observations restrict the addition in the hands of the assessee to the extent of the profit element of ₹ 23,125/- (i.e 12.5% of ₹ 1,85,321/-) that would have been involved for making the aforementioned purchases from the open/grey market.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1824
Impleadment as party in the pending application - Approval of Resolution Plan - section 30 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- It is a matter of record that on same issue/subject an appeal was preferred by the same applicant, which is already disposed of by this Bench, in ESSAR STEEL ASIA HOLDINGS LTD. AND OTHERS VERSUS SATHISH KUMAR GUPTA, RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL AND OTHERS [2019 (1) TMI 1741 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL - AHMEDABAD BENCH], wherein, it is held that shareholders of a corporate debtor company many not be treated as participant in the CIRP. Hence, the pre- sent application as filed before this Bench by the shareholder of the company is not maintainable, keeping in view of the mandate and direction issued by the hon'ble Supreme Court of India under article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Application disposed off.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1823
Prayer for amendment of the prayer clause of its main interlocutory application - HELD THAT:- The relief being sought for in the present I. A., is procedural in nature and by seeking incorporation of additional pleadings as proposed in paragraph 2 of the application, the nature of the proceedings is not changed nor does there arise a separate of cause of action. In the present application, the applicant is seeking incorporation of prayer clauses (D) and (E) in I. A. No. 468 of 2018.
Application allowed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1822
Maintainability of appeal - time limitation - Appeals to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) - Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act - appeal dismissed as having been filed beyond the period of two months and the extended period of one month from the date of communication of the Order - HELD THAT:- A perusal of sub section (3A) of Section 85 clearly indicates that an appeal shall be presented within two months from the date of receipt of the order of the adjudicating authority in relation to service tax, interest or penalty. It further provides that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of two months, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month - The discretion of the Commissioner to condone the delay is, therefore, circumscribed by the condition set out in proviso and the delay can be condoned only if the appeal is presented within a further period of one month after the expiry of the statutory period of two months, provided of course, he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within a period of two months.
In the present case, admittedly, the order of the adjudicating authority was received by the appellant on 20 September, 2013 but the appeal was presented before the Commissioner on 05 February, 2016. It was clearly not presented within the period of two months nor within the extended period of one month - The Supreme Court in SINGH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR [2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] held that the period upto which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is limited by the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 35 of the Act and the position is crystal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of thirty days after the expiry period of sixty days. In other words, the appellate authority can entertain the appeal by condoning the delay only upto 30 days beyond the normal period for preferring the appeal, which is 60 days. The Commissioner (Appeals) was, therefore, justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation.
The Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, did not commit any illegality in dismissing the appeal - appeal dismissed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1821
Validity of assessment order - TNVAT Act - assessment not completed even though revision notices issued - HELD THAT:- The case on hand is a classic example where the appellant has taken the statutory procedure adopted by the respondent as an empty formality. The facts clearly disclose that the appellant had not been cooperating in the assessment proceedings. Though the appellant received the revision notices dated 18.1.2016, they did not submit their reply within the time stipulated i.e 15 days, but gave the reply only on 14.6.2016. Even thereafter, several opportunities were given and a personal hearing was also fixed on 29.10.2018 and the notice of personal hearing was stated to have been received by the appellant on 25.10.2018.
Nothing prevented the appellant from approaching the respondent if there is any difficulty in producing the records. The attitude of the appellant needs to be deprecated. Equally, it is not known as to why the Assessing Officer did not take steps to complete the assessment even though the revision notices were issued on 18.1.2016. There have been cases where the Assessing Officers completed the assessments immediately after the expiry of time limit stipulated in the notices if no reply is filed. It is also not known as to why such a procedure was not followed in the appellant-s case, presumably for the reasons best known.
Petition dismissed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1820
Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - assessee did not comply with the various statutory notices - Assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the assessment order shows that the order has been passed u/s 143(3) on 10.11.2016. Further, the Assessing Officer, in the body of the assessment order has mentioned that the assessee has complied with the statutory notices issued u/s 142(1) and the information/details asked for have been furnished which were discussed and placed on record. He has further mentioned that the assessment proceedings were attended by Shri Sanjay Jain, CA with whom the case was discussed.
Since the assessee has furnished requisite details for completion of assessment by compliance of statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer and the assessment has been completed u/s 143(3), therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty so levied. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1819
Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - approval of CoC - whether the plan submitted for approval meets the requirement of law as stated in section 30(2) and section 31 of I&B Code? - HELD THAT:- The CoC having issued public notice of invitation of Eol/Plan on AS IS WHERE IS AND AS IS WHAT IS basis, the CoC made exception to the above condition and approved the plan. The plan as approved by them cannot be effectively implemented because resolution applicant made it very clear that his plan is subject to fulfilment of conditions, i.e. eviction of Daaksh Jute LLP.
CoC ought not have approved the plan. The commercial wisdom of CoC herein is not questioned but it appears that the CoC did not consider the legal implications while approving the plan. They approved the plan ignoring the provisions of section 30(2)(e) of I&B Code. The resolution plan submitted for my approval is in contravention of above provisions of law. It cannot be approved by this authority. The resolution plan of M/s. K.L.Jute Products Private Ltd. is rejected.
CIRP period of 270 days already expired two months ago. Hence, it is of no use to refer other two plans- one by Mr. Madan Mohan Mal and the other by Mr. Prashant Damani back to CoC's consideration. It cannot be done now. I am not entering into controversy whether both of them are related party of the corporate debtor or not and whether the provisions of section 29A are not applicable to the corporate debtor, in view of section 240A of I&B Code. Such questions are irrelevant. CoC has approved the only one plan i.e. M/s.K.L.Jute Private Ltd. However, in my considered opinion that plan does not comply all provisions stated in section 30(2) of I&B Code. I have to reject that plan.
The Liquidator, in view of provision of section 33(6) of I&B Code is replaced - Corporate Debtor - Tirupati Jute Industries Limited is liquidated as a going concern under regulation 32(c) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process), Regulation 2016.
List the matter on 30.04.2019 for filing of the progress report.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1818
Allowability of expenses - Whether assessee has not carried out any business activity during the impugned AY? - HELD THAT:- So long as the assessee’s business is in existence, actual business receipts in not a sine qua non to claim the business expenditure. The assessee was a corporate entity and its business could come to an end only upon its being wound up as per due process of law. The corporate entity has to incur expenditure so as to maintain its corporate personality and day-to-day existence. Other notable feature is the fact that the assessee has claimed depreciation which demonstrate that its fixed assets were in existence and were not sold-off during impugned AY.
The perusal of other expenses as placed on record reveal that the same are in the nature of electricity, water charges, rent, duties & taxes, travelling, telephone expenses, legal expenses & other routine expenditure. So far as the treatment of misc. income and insurance premium refund is concerned, the complete details of the same was already filed by the assessee before AO and the same were found to be arising out of liquidation of old stock and refund of excess premium paid by the assessee and therefore, the same were clearly business income in nature. The revenue is unable to rebut the factual matrix as well as case laws being relied upon by first appellate authority. This being the case, no infirmity or perversity could be found in the impugned order.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1817
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - Not including IDC (India) Ltd., Informed Technologies India Ltd., Pipal Research Analytics & Information Services India Pvt. Ltd., and ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd., as comparable companies for the purpose of benchmarking the international transactions carried out by the assessee - DRP justification in including the Ladderup Corporate Advisory Pvt. Ltd. as comparable - HELD THAT:- Ladderup Corporate Advisory Pvt. Ltd., cannot be treated as a comparable to the assessee as this company cannot be a comparable to a company engaged in the activity of investment advisory services.
IDC (India) Ltd. is engaged in providing non–binding investment advisory services akin to the assessee for the very same assessment year, thus is a good comparable.
ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd egarding difference in skill set held that ICRA Management Consultancy Services is a valid comparable to a company providing non– binding investment advisory services. It is also relevant to note, in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2009–10, this company has been accepted as a comparable by the DRP. Even otherwise also, the observations of the Transfer Pricing Officer on difference in skill set between the assessee and the comparable company appears to be not on the basis of proper analysis of fact and more on assumption and presumption. As regards other functional differences of this comparable pointed by the learned Departmental Representative, it needs to be mentioned, neither Transfer Pricing Officer nor DRP have deliberated on those aspects. Since these issues raised by the learned Departmental Representative are completely new issues and never raised at any stage earlier, we do not consider it appropriate to deal with them as it requires verification of fresh facts - we direct the Assessing Officer to accept this company as a comparable.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1816
Review petition - appellants herein are the legal representatives of the original appellant, who was the writ petitioner and the review petitioner whereas the respondents herein were the respondents in the writ petition and the review application - legality of main order - contention is that original appellant continued to remain in possession of the surplus land even after the Repeal Act came into force, all the ceiling proceedings against her in relation to the lands in question stood lapsed in terms of Repeal Act.
Legality of main order - HELD THAT:- It is found that there is no good ground to invoke extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and the appellants(legal representatives of original appellant) are permitted to question the legality of main order dated 14.03.2008 in this appeal.
Whether the review order is legally sustainable or not? - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the main order dated 14.03.2008, we find that the High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the writ petitioner (original appellant herein) failed to prove her possession over the land in question on the date of repeal. It was held that the State had taken possession of the land in the year 1982 as per the panchnama prepared by the State - In review, the High Court held that while recording the aforementioned finding in the main order, no apparent error, whether on facts or law within the meaning of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, was committed attracting the rigor of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code.
It is a settled law that every error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code though it can be made subject matter of appeal arising out of such order. In other words, in order to attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record of the case.
Once the finding was recorded by the High Court in the writ petition that the writ petitioner (original appellant) failed to prove her actual possession on the land in question on the date of repeal, such finding could not have been examined de novo in review jurisdiction by the same Court like an Appellate Court on the facts and evidence.
There are no merits in the appeal - appeal dismissed.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1815
TP Adjustment - addition on account of interest on loan from Associated Enterprise (AE) at LIBOR+200 basis points - LIBOR+300 points made by the AO, whereas the assessee has benchmarked the said international transaction with its AE at LIBOR+100 basis points - HELD THAT:- We find merits in the contention of Ld. AR that there was no geographical difference as observed by the TPO for the reason that DVB Merchant Bank (Asia) Ltd., Singapore and assessee is operating from the same country i.e., Singapore. In our opinion, assessee has rightly followed the CUP method to benchmark the international transaction at the same rate at which it borrowed the loan from the bank, thereby incurring no extra cost nor earning any income on the transaction from the AE. We are of the considered view that the transaction by assessee with AE has rightly been benchmarked on CUP basis at LIBOR+100 basis points as the DVB Merchant Bank (Asia) Ltd., Singapore has lent the money to assessee at the same rate at which the assessee lent the money to its AE meaning thereby had the AE borrowed funds from the Bank directly , these would have been available at the same rate of interest i.e. Libor + 100 basis point. In our view, the order of CIT(A) cannot be sustained on this point for this reason that the AE of the assessee and DVB Merchant Bank (Asia) Ltd., is operating from the same country, so the reasons sought by the TPO and CIT(A) are not reasonable, accordingly we direct the AO the delete the addition. The ground no. 6 is allowed.
Addition u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D - assessee is covered by Tonnage Tax Scheme - HELD THAT:- Once the department has allowed the option to the assessee under Clause (1) Sub-section (3) of Section 115VP of the Act, then, we are of the view that disallowance u/s. 14A will not be attracted - direct the AO to delete the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. Ground of appeal no. 7 is allowed.
Including tax free interest on Government Bonds as taxable interest income - vide letter dt. 09-09-2009 the assessee claimed that same is not taxable - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that the income which is totally exempt from tax i.e., tax free interest income on 6.85% tax free bonds cannot be included in the income and brought to tax. In our opinion, such a claim of assessee could have been admitted at the appellate stage by the CIT(A). But unfortunately, it was not done. We therefore relying on the aforesaid CBDT circular and BALMUKUND ACHARYA [2008 (12) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] decision are of the considered view that the income which is exempt and does not fall in the charging provisions of the Act has to be excluded from the total income. In this regard, we direct the AO to exclude the amount from the total income of assessee. This ground no. 8 is allowed.
Deduction of Municipal Taxes while computing total income - AO denied claim of assessee on the ground that it is not made in the return of income or revised return - HELD THAT:- First Appellate Authority is well within its jurisdiction to accept the fresh claim made by assessee even if not made in the return of income or as per the revised return. We therefore following the CBDT circular no14(XL-35) of 1955 and Balmukund Acharya [2008 (12) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] reverse the order of CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to allow the deduction of municipal taxes.
Income tax refund from the income of the assessee - Claim under the head ‘Miscellaneous Income’ should not be included in the income of assessee as the same repesented the refund of income tax for AYs. 1993-94 and 1994-95 - HELD THAT:- In our view, when the refund is an asset of the assessee, which has been given by the department on account of being excess payment by assessee of tax and therefore, same cannot be included in the income of assessee. In our view, the Ld. CIT(A) should have directed the AO to exclude the said income tax refund from the income of the assessee, but wrongly relying on the decision in the case of Goetze India Ltd., [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] upheld the action of AO. In our view, the claim of assessee could have been entertained by the appellate authority as the ratio laid down in the case of Goetze India Ltd (supra) is not applicable to the appellate authorities. We therefore, direct the AO to exclude an amount from the income of assessee. Accordingly, this ground of appeal no. 11 is allowed.
Adjustment by applying profit split method - TPO has rejected the CUP method after giving detailed reasons in the order passed u/s. 92CA(3) - HELD THAT:- Addition on account of interest charged from AE on the loan advanced was adjudicated by us herein above vide para No.3.7 upholding the CUP method for banking transactions and also upholding LIBOR+100 basis points. Therefore, the addition is covered by the said decision on this issue. We accordingly dismiss this limb of the ground no. 1 of the Revenue.
Addition to the book profits on account of profit on sale of depreciable assets - as per the Income Tax rules, sale price is deductible from written down value of Block of Assets and therefore there is no profit on sale of fixed assets while calculating the book profit u/s. 115JB - HELD THAT:- Since the facts of the case before us are same as decided by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of the Shivalik Venture (P) Ltd., Vs. DCIT [2015 (8) TMI 979 - ITAT MUMBAI] respectfully following the same, we direct the AO not to include the profit on sale of Vessel while computing book profits u/s. 115JB.
Disallowing the set-off of Long-term Capital Loss arising on account of units of mutual funds on which STT has been paid against Long-term Capital Gains on which no STT is paid - HELD THAT:- After carefully perusing the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in Raptakos Brett & Co Ltd. [2015 (6) TMI 529 - ITAT MUMBAI] we agree contentions of the Ld. AR that this ground of appeal is covered in favour of the assessee.
Not allowing cost of acquiring shares of foreign subsidiary company to be increased while computing LTCG when the sale price of ship increased under Transfer Pricing provisions - HELD THAT:- If the price of the ship is increased by making TP adjustments, then the value of shares allotted in lieu of ship transferred should be increased by the corresponding amount. Accordingly we direct the AO to take the cost of acquisition at ₹ 50 Crores. The Ground No. 9 of the assessee is allowed. See M/S. BENGAL FINANCE & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. [2015 (2) TMI 1263 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]
Disallowance u/s 14A while computing Book Profit u/s 115JB - HELD THAT:- No disallowance can be made u/s.115JB of the Act on account of disallowance made u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D.
Interest on loan to employees, sundry balances written off and interest income - income from business or income from other sources - AO came to the conclusion that the said income are not connected to the core business of the assessee and hence assessed the same as income from other source - HELD THAT:- Company was to buy a new ship for which it had borrowed funds and had obtained RBI approval and it earned interest on the unutilized portion of this amount. AO brought this amount to tax as income from other sources. However, ITAT held that this activity was a part of appellant’s business and hence interest earned was liable to be treated as business income. The finding of ITAT was upheld by Bombay High Court in the above decision.Thus case of the appellant is covered by the Bombay High Court in the case of Varun Shipping as [2008 (9) TMI 591 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Respectfully following the judgment, addition of interest income as income from other sources is deleted.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1814
Amalgamation of Indian Airlines and Air India - validity of entitlement by the Ex-Indian Airlines officials - recovery of unpaid dues - HELD THAT:- In Petition No. 1088/2013, identical disputes are pending - As the Hon'ble Apex Court is seized the pending of disputes, the petitioner herein would be at liberty to seek clarification with respect to the present petition from the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Adjourned Sine-Die.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1813
Advance Authorisation Scheme - Diversion of duty free import - Phenol - allegation established solely on the basis of stock statement record and the confessional statement of the partner but entries available in the record i.e. stock register, which was seized by DRI negates the allegation of alleged sale of duty free imported phenol - HELD THAT:- Going by stock register extract copy containing seal of the DRI, on the day of sale of 2860 kg of phenol, the closing balance of phenol available with the appellant industry was 12.387 MT, as reveals from the said stock register extract and quantity of duty free stock, as pointed out by the appellant to be of 12.350 MT, has been reflected in the said register that has not been disputed by the respondent-department. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that balance stock available with the appellant was more than the duty free stock imported by it. A close scrutiny of the order of Commissioner of Customs, Goa at para 35 would reveal that on the same ground, duty demand of first sale of 3.8 MT on 1-6-2007 was waived off and the second sale was held to be dutiable on the ground that appellant had admitted the sale to have been made out of duty free stock. This being the sole justification found in Order-in-Original, apart from use of allegedly invalid licence which was not agitated by licence issuing authorities i.e. DGFT, no other course available before us to give a finding on the issue except placing reliance on the documentary evidence that surpasses the oral evidence as per the principle contained in Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Thus, at the time of second sale also, appellant had sufficient stock of duty free phenol available at its disposal.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1812
Assessment u/s 153A - HELD THAT: The controversy involved in the present case stands concluded saying that while it cannot be disputed that considering section 153A, the Assessing Officer can reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year. See KABUL CHAWLA [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
-
2019 (2) TMI 1811
Rejection of books of accounts - NP addition - HELD THAT:- This is not a fit / case for rejection of books of account and estimation of profits as the search has not thrown up any specific discrepancies in the accounts regularly maintained by the appellant. A.O. has rejected the books of account and estimated the profits of the business only based upon NP ratio without confronting the same to the appellant. This is completely in violation of principles of natural justice. A.O. has adopted a very simplistic approach in completing the assessment.
Such action of the A.O. cannot be sustained. We agree with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that no ground survives for rejection of books and estimation of income. The result of remand proceedings support the stand of the assessee. The assessee group have also honoured there declaration of surrender of income made during search & seizure proceedings. As is evident from the detailed letter dated 28.02.2014, submitted before the AO. The group had surrendered ₹ 10 crore during the search. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and allowed the appeal of the assessee, which does not need any interference on our part, therefore, we uphold the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the ground raised by the Revenue.
-
2019 (2) TMI 1810
Long term capital gain on sale of land by the assessee - FMV - dispute between the assessee and the AO is the rate at 290 per sq.mtr as FMV as on 01.04.1981 whereas DVO has estimated the same @ 162 per sq.mtr. - HELD THAT:- DVO’s Report that sale instances considered by the DVO are not of the same survey no. Further, the DVO has himself stated in his report that impugned land was situated at more appropriate location as compared to sale instances considered by him.
CIT(A) has also pointed out that the value determined by the Registrar Valuer was based on unscientific, ad-hoc method and DVO has determined the rate of reduction 162 per sq.mtr cost incurred on stamp duty, additional stamp duty, registration charges, legal charges. Therefore, considering the entirety of the facts and taking a holistic view, we are inclined to accept the ld.Counsel’s argument that the average value as determined by Registrar Valuer of the assessee DVO and has considered by the CIT(A) would be more reasonable and appropriate for determination of the FMV of land as on 01.04.1981. Accordingly, the average rate for FMV is worked out to ₹ 210 i.e. (162 + 290 + 178 = 630/3= 210). The AO, therefore, accordingly directed to reworked out the index cost of acquisition by taking FMV at ₹ 210 per sq.mtr and re-compute the taxable long term gain, accordingly this ground of the assessee is therefore partly allowed.
Addition on account of difference in Jantri Value by applying the provisions of section 50C - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the difference between the valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority and declared by the assessee is less than 10%. Therefore, we hereby direct the AO to adopt the value as declared by the assessee. This ground of the assessee is allowed.
We direct the AO to adopt the valuation of sale consideration as declared by the assessee. The additions made by the Assessing Officer u/s.50C is deleted and as grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
............
|
9911796707
