|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 554 Records
-
2004 (6) TMI 288
Interpretation of section 73 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - treatment of losses in speculation business -Applicability of the explanation to section 73 - earns a profit in speculative transactions - HELD THAT:-From this CBDT circular, it is clear that the object of this provision is to curb the device being resorted to by some business houses to manipulate and reduce the taxable income by booking speculative losses. A plain reading of the section, as we have already stated, and a reading of the heading puts it beyond doubt that this section cannot be invoked in a case where there is a profit from a speculative transaction.
Coming to the explanation to section 73, the same should be so read as to harmonise with and clear up any ambiguity in the main section and should not be so construed as to widen the ambit of the section. [Reliance is placed on Bihta Co-operative Development and Cane Marketing Union Ltd. v. Bank of Bihar [1966 (10) TMI 145 - SUPREME COURT]. The explanation is only for the purposes of section 73 and when the section itself does not apply, the explanation cannot be invoked, under the facts and circumstances of this case.
The argument of the learned departmental representative that the term 'loss' includes profit, is not correct, as only under explanation 2 to proviso of section 64(2) it is stated that for the purposes of that section 'income' includes loss. There is no proposition that 'profit' includes loss.
Thus, we allow the appeal of the assessee by holding that section 73 is inapplicable to this case. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2004 (6) TMI 287
Validity of Notice u/s 143(2) and its Service within the Prescribed Time - HELD THAT:- From the observations of the Hon'ble Court in the case of P. Abdulkadar Hamza v. CIT [2000 (7) TMI 25 - KERALA HIGH COURT], it is clear that the notice has to be served upon the assessee and mere issuance of notice within a period of 12 months is not sufficient. It may be pointed out here that in the order sheet entry dated 22-11-1995 itself it has been mentioned that the notice u/s 143(2) was received from the assessee late and not that the assessee had received the notice before 1-11-1995. In any case, from this entry it is not established that any notice was served upon the assessee on 31-10-1995 on which date 12 months expired from the date of filing return. Thus, this argument of the ld. CIT, DR cannot be accepted. As the department has not been able to demonstrate that the notice under section 143(2) was served within 12 months from the date of furnishing of the return, the assessment made on the basis of such invalid notice cannot be treated to be a valid assessment and hence such assessment order was to be treated as null and void ab initio and was liable to be quashed and annulled.
Hence, we conclude that the service mode adopted by the department through affixation was neither initiated in accordance with the relevant rules nor the service by such mode was done as per the rules referred to above and hence such service cannot be accepted to be a legally valid service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act. We, therefore, hold that there was no valid service of notice by affixation. In view of our discussions, we also hold that there was no service by a Registered Post before 1-11-1995. Thus, in our view, the notice u/s 143(2) was not served within 12 months of the filing of the return.
Thus, we are unable to concur with the findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) for rejecting the additional ground taken before him. Hence we set aside his finding and hold that there was no valid and proper service of notice within the period prescribed i.e. before the expiry of 12 months from the date of filing of the return and, therefore, the assessment made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of such invalid notice has to be declared 'null' and 'void' and is to be quashed accordingly.
Consequently, the ground taken by the assessee is allowed in its favour - In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2004 (6) TMI 286
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act.
2. Non-passing of order on the first ground of appeal by the learned CWT(A).
3. Validity of the order under Section 16(5) of the Wealth Tax Act.
4. Valuation of unquoted equity shares of the Delhi Stock Exchange Ltd.
5. Charging of interest under Section 17(B) from the due date.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act:
The primary issue was whether the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 17 was valid. The assessee contended that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible. The Tribunal examined various precedents, including CIT vs. Foramer France, CIT vs. Tarajan Tea Co. (P) Ltd., and CIT vs. Kalvinator of India Ltd., which established that reassessment cannot be initiated on a mere change of opinion. However, the Tribunal found that the AO had new material information regarding the non-disclosure of the value of the stock exchange membership, which constituted valid grounds for reassessment. Therefore, the action under Section 17 was upheld as valid.
2. Non-passing of order on the first ground of appeal by the learned CWT(A):
The Tribunal noted that the learned CWT(A) did not pass any order regarding the first ground of appeal. This procedural lapse was acknowledged, but it did not affect the overall decision on the merits of the case.
3. Validity of the order under Section 16(5) of the Wealth Tax Act:
The assessee argued that the order under Section 16(5) was passed in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind. The Tribunal found that the AO had indeed considered all relevant facts and materials before passing the order. Hence, this ground was rejected.
4. Valuation of unquoted equity shares of the Delhi Stock Exchange Ltd.:
The Tribunal addressed multiple sub-issues under this heading:
- Separate Valuation of Shares and Ticket: The AO's method of valuing the shares and the trading ticket separately was contested. The Tribunal upheld the AO's method, stating that the ticket had a distinct value.
- Ignoring Clause 11 of Part C of Schedule III: The Tribunal found that the AO had followed the correct statutory provisions for valuation.
- Taxability of the Ticket: The Tribunal rejected the argument that the ticket was not taxable, referencing the binding precedent of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Bubna.
- Intangible Nature of the Ticket: The Tribunal held that the ticket was a tangible asset and thus taxable.
- Integral Nature of the Ticket and Share: The Tribunal found that the ticket and share could be valued separately.
- Charitable Objectives of the Delhi Stock Exchange Ltd.: The Tribunal rejected the claim that the shares had no commercial value due to the charitable objectives of the exchange.
- Application of Clauses 11 and 20 Simultaneously: The Tribunal found no error in the AO's application of both clauses for valuation.
- Directive for Valuation: The Tribunal upheld the AO's valuation method and did not direct a change.
- Interest under Section 17(B): The Tribunal directed the AO to reconsider the charging of interest in accordance with the law after hearing the assessee.
5. Charging of interest under Section 17(B) from the due date:
The Tribunal noted that the AO should reconsider the charging of interest under Section 17(B) from the due date and make a decision in accordance with the law after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings under Section 17, the method of valuation of the unquoted equity shares, and the separate valuation of the trading ticket. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, directing the AO to reconsider certain aspects like the charging of interest under Section 17(B).
-
2004 (6) TMI 285
Interest paid to IT Department in computing book profit u/s 115JA - adjustment made by the AO u/s 143(1)(a) - HELD THAT:- No adjustment is required to be made u/s 115JA in respect of any interest paid or payable debited to the P&L a/c in order to compute book profit though the expense is not allowed as deduction while calculating/determining taxable income, with reference to s. 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act. The Kerala High Court in Fertilisers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd.[2002 (10) TMI 39 - KERALA HIGH COURT] has observed that Expln. (a) of s. 115JA of the Act mentions only the amount of income-tax paid or payable. That does not include interest. Insofar as interest on income-tax is not mentioned in this section, this cannot be added under s. 115JA of the Act. It, therefore, came to the conclusion that the addition of interest on income tax cannot be made.
However, in the impugned order, the learned CIT(A) relied on the decision of Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd.[1984 (9) TMI 46 - DELHI HIGH COURT] which was in the context of deduction as an expenditure for the purpose of earning any income or profit but not about the deemed income under s. 115JA, which provision has to be construed strictly. In that view of the matter, the learned CIT(A) is found to have committed an error. Having regard to the decision of Kerala High Court in Fertilisers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd., the action to increase the profit by the amount of interest paid to the IT Department while determining book profit cannot be upheld. Accordingly, ground of the assessee stands allowed. Since the charging of additional tax u/s 143(1)(a) would be consequential, this ground along with ground Nos. 1 & 2 stands allowed.
-
2004 (6) TMI 284
Issues involved:
1. Additional grounds of appeal requested by the assessee.
2. Claim of deduction on account of warranty obligation.
3. Disallowance made by the AO due to an arithmetical error.
4. Charging of interest under section 234C and its deletion.
5. Legal interpretation regarding the charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal filed by the assessee included additional grounds requested after the original filing. The Tribunal allowed the additional grounds in the interest of justice, enabling the assessee to present these new issues for consideration.
2. Grounds of appeal numbered 2 and 3 were related to the CIT(A) not allowing the assessee's claim of deduction concerning warranty obligation. The Tribunal rejected these grounds based on a previous order by the Delhi 'E' Bench, which had ruled against the assessee in a similar case for assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85.
3. An additional ground of appeal (ground No. 7) highlighted an arithmetical error in the disallowance made by the AO. The Tribunal directed the AO to rectify the mistake and adjust the amount accordingly.
4. The issue of interest under section 234C was raised, with the assessee contending that it was wrongly charged in the assessment order. The Tribunal considered legal arguments citing judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and directed the AO to reevaluate the chargeability of interest under section 234C, emphasizing the need for a speaking order.
5. The Tribunal delved into the legal interpretation regarding the mandatory nature of charging interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C. Various judgments were cited to support the position that interest must be charged when required, and any omission in the assessment order is a rectifiable error. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a speaking order by the AO in such cases and ordered a reevaluation of the matter with due consideration to legal precedents and the intent of the law.
In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, addressing the various issues raised by the assessee and providing detailed legal analysis based on relevant judgments and statutory provisions.
-
2004 (6) TMI 283
Issues:
- Appeal against orders of CIT(A) for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97.
- Dispute over the benefit of s. 10(22) of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessee trust.
- Allegation of diverting funds for profit and business interests.
- CIT(A) directing AO to allow exemption under s. 10(22) for both years.
- Disallowance of depreciation in assessment year 1996-97.
Analysis:
1. The Department appealed against the orders of CIT(A) for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97, challenging the allowance of the benefit of s. 10(22) of the IT Act, 1961 to the assessee trust. The main grievance was that the trust had diverted funds for profit and business interests, thereby not existing solely for educational purposes. The AO observed substantial investments in equity shares and alleged benefiting managing committee members' business interests.
2. The CIT(A) found that the assessee trust had not engaged in business activities but had invested in shares for educational purposes. The surplus generated was utilized solely for educational activities, leading to the direction to allow exemption under s. 10(22) for both years. The Department contended that despite charging high tuition fees, the trust invested in shares, generating surplus not solely used for education, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Aditanar Educational Institute case.
3. The assessee's counsel argued that the surplus generated was not significant, with most shares acquired long ago as corpus. The returns from investments were utilized for educational purposes, and restrictions under ss. 11 and 12 did not apply to s. 10(22). The counsel refuted claims of substantial Birla family control over the trust and cited various judicial precedents supporting exemption for educational trusts.
4. The Tribunal analyzed the facts and contentions, emphasizing the need to evaluate exemption eligibility realistically without being hyper-technical. It noted that the trust's surplus was primarily applied to educational activities, not solely for share investments. The legislative intent focused on the predominant educational purpose, allowing surplus utilization for better returns for educational goals. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, affirming the trust's existence solely for educational purposes.
5. In the assessment year 1996-97, the Department challenged the disallowance of depreciation due to lack of business income. However, as the Tribunal allowed exemption under s. 10(22) for the trust, the depreciation issue became academic. Following relevant case law, the Tribunal allowed the trust's claim for depreciation. Consequently, both Department appeals were dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s orders granting exemption under s. 10(22) and allowing depreciation.
-
2004 (6) TMI 282
Disallowance u/s 37 - entertainment expenses - Manufacturing of mini-computers/micro-processor based systems - Treatment of expenditure as capital or revenue - Provision for warranties - Provision for royalty - Disallowance of income-tax paid on salary of managing director - excessive and unreasonable payments u/s 40A(2)(b) - HELD THAT:- As regards the relevance of accounting method followed by the assessee, we have already observed that the treatment given by the assessee to the impugned expenditure as deferred revenue expenditure cannot be considered as different from the one followed for the purpose of computing the total income under the IT Act. In any case, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1971 (8) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT], the allowability of a particular deduction depends on the provisions of law relating thereto and not on the basis of entries made in the books of account, which are not decisive or conclusive in this regard.
The expenditure in question was incurred towards advertisements in launching of a new product and was revenue in nature. The action of the Revenue authorities in treating the same as capital expenditure and disallowing the claim for deduction was not proper. We direct the AO to delete the addition made to the total income. Thus, grounds No. 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4 are allowed while ground No. 1.3 does not require any adjudication in view of the decision on grounds No. 1.1, 1.2 and 1.4.
Provision for warranties - The basis of computation of the warranty for the asst. yr. 1990-91 was 1.5 per cent of the total cost of sales. In the asst. yr. 1991-92, which is the year in dispute in the present appeal, the provision has been made @ 1.5 per cent of the cost of sales in respect of goods sold within the country and 5 per cent on export sales. The assessee also wrote back the provision made for the asst. yr. 1990-91, from the estimated liability for asst. yr. 1991-92 and the difference alone is sought to be claimed as a deduction while determining the income for asst. yr. 1991-92. Even for the subsequent assessment year the provision on account of liability under warranty has been made on a scientific basis. Whatever provisions, have been made for a particular assessment year in excess the actual expenses incurred in the subsequent assessment year, the difference is again written back in the subsequent assessment year.
Thus, a legal obligation to make a payment in future can be said to have accrued. It is not required to wait for the contingency to occur. We can infer that a business liability has definitely arisen in the accounting year though the quantification or discharge of this liability was at a future day. The estimation by the assessee of its liability is reasonably certain. In the circumstances it can be said that the liability is in presenti to be discharged at a future date and not a contingent one. We, therefore, direct the AO to allow a sum claimed as deduction by the assessee.
Provision for royalty - It is clear from the perusal of the provisions of s. 40(a)(i) that if royalty is payable outsideIndia, tax has to be deducted or paid under Chapter XVII-B and only then the deduction can be claimed in computing the income chargeable under the head profit and gains of business and profession. In the present case the liability to pay the royalty had accrued and it was not contingent as held by the AO. The quantification had taken place at later point of time and this was not the event by which the liability became ascertained. As already observed by us, while making the provision the assessee had also made book entries in respect of tax deductible. The condition under s. 40(a)(i) was either deducting tax at the time of payment or making actual payment. If one of the conditions is fulfilled then the deduction is allowable.
Thus, we are of the view that the Revenue authorities were not justified in disallowing the provision made for royalty. The addition made by the AO in this regard is directed to be deleted. The 3rd ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Salary of managing director - The nature of payment made by the assessee cannot assume the character of remuneration paid to the managing director. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malayalam Plantations [1964 (4) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT], the fact that it was paid under an agreement will not make the payment an expenditure in connection with the business of the assessee.
Payment of rent for accommodation of managing director and payment of his club fees - These payments were approved even by the Department of Electronics, which approved the appointment of foreign technician. The annexure to the approval by the Department of Company Affairs also specifies that housing and club fees will be paid subject to certain limitations. The club fees paid is, therefore, to be allowed as a deduction.
As far as house rent paid is concerned, the case of the AO is that it is excessive and unreasonable. The AO has not brought enough material on record to prove this allegation and it was incumbent upon him to do so before making any disallowance. The deduction towards house rent and club fees is, therefore, directed to be allowed while the tax liability of the employee claimed as a deduction cannot be allowed as a deduction. Thus, ground No. 5 is dismissed while ground No. 6 is allowed.
In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed.
Disallowance under s. 40A(2)(b) - The AO has made a sweeping statement that the payment made is excessive. There is absolutely no record to justify his calculation. The CIT(A) was, therefore, justified in deleting the addition made by the AO by taking note of the other circumstances, namely, the allegation of under-invoicing by customs authorities and orders of the Asstt. Collector of Customs concluding that the value determined by the assessee is correct. Consequently, the first ground of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2004 (6) TMI 281
Issues: Validity of proceedings of reassessment under s. 147/148 of the IT Act
Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under s. 147/148 of the IT Act for the assessment year 1994-95.
2. The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not record reasons before issuing notice under s. 148, and there was no application of mind for initiating the proceedings.
3. The AO did not specifically point out any item of income that had escaped assessment, leading to a challenge on the grounds of non-communication of reasons for reopening the assessment.
4. The Tribunal noted that the AO's reasons for reopening the assessment were primarily for verification purposes, which was not a legally correct approach for initiating reassessment proceedings.
5. The AO's reasons did not indicate that the income had escaped assessment, and the Tribunal found merit in the argument that the AO did not apply his mind before initiating proceedings.
6. The Tribunal emphasized that proceedings under s. 147 cannot be initiated for a roving or fishing enquiry but must be based on a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, which was lacking in this case.
7. The Tribunal held that the AO's notice under s. 148 and the initiation of reassessment proceedings were not legally justified, leading to the annulment of the assessment order as illegal and void.
8. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, annulling the assessment order, and did not delve into the other grounds on merits since the assessment was deemed invalid.
This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, findings, and legal principles considered by the Tribunal in determining the validity of the reassessment proceedings under s. 147/148 of the IT Act for the relevant assessment year.
-
2004 (6) TMI 280
Issues:
- Appeal by Revenue against deletion of addition under s. 68 on account of unexplained share application money
- Identity of shareholder and genuineness of transaction in case of share capital investment by M/s Shri Balaji Portfolio (P) Ltd.
- Whether M/s SBPPL is a benami company of Shri KC Hazarika
- Assessment of evidence and legal precedents for lifting corporate veil in determining addition under s. 68
- Adverse inferences drawn without cross-examination and examination of directors/shareholders
- Compliance with legal requirements for proving identity of shareholder and genuineness of transaction
Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the deletion of an addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act related to unexplained share application money introduced by M/s Shri Balaji Portfolio (P) Ltd. The Revenue contended that M/s SBPPL was a benami company of Shri KC Hazarika, based on his statement admitting to managing benami companies and engaging in non-genuine transactions. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the assessee's plea, emphasizing the need to lift the corporate veil in specific circumstances. The AO concluded that the investment by SBPPL was unexplained and should be added to the assessee's income.
The assessee argued before the CIT(A) that the identity of the shareholder was established, citing legal precedents and compliance with legal requirements. The CIT(A) found the company to be duly incorporated and regularly assessed, holding that the onus on the assessee was discharged. The CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the addition under section 68, relying on the decision in CIT vs. Sofia Financial Ltd. The Revenue appealed this decision before the ITAT.
During the ITAT proceedings, the Departmental Representative highlighted Hazarika's statement and the non-genuineness of transactions, supporting the AO's decision to lift the corporate veil. The assessee's counsel reiterated compliance with legal standards and emphasized the lack of connection between Hazarika and the assessee-company. The ITAT considered the submissions and found that the assessee had proven the genuineness of the credit, as required by legal precedents. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the deletion of the addition under section 68.
In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the decision to delete the addition under section 68 based on the established identity of the shareholder and compliance with legal standards. The judgment emphasized the importance of fulfilling legal requirements in proving the genuineness of transactions and the identity of shareholders, as outlined in relevant legal precedents.
-
2004 (6) TMI 279
Short deduction of TDS - Salary payment to the employees in the form of leave travel allowance (LTA) - Assessee in default - Levy of interest - HELD THAT:- We find that there was sufficient material available on record for the assessee to entertain a bona Me belief that the LTA granted to its employees was exempt u/s 10(5) and thus, the estimate of salary made by it for the purpose of deduction of tax at source for salary income as required by the provisions of s. 192 based on such bona fide belief was certainly a fair and honest estimate. It, therefore, follows that the obligation cast on the assessee-company u/s 192 was duly discharged by the assessee-company and there being nothing brought on record by the Revenue to show any instance of any of the employees having not actually incurred the LTA granted to them on their travel, we are of the view that there was no case to treat the assessee-company as an assessee in default in respect of the short deduction, if any, of the tax deducted at source from such salary income merely because the actual proof/evidence of halving actually incurred the leave travel allowance on travel expenses was not verified by it.
As such, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee-company had complied with the requirements of s. 192 and there was no case to treat it as an assessee in default u/s 201(1) as well as to charge interest u/s 201(1A). In that view of the matter, we hold that the learned CIT(A) was fully justified in cancelling the orders passed by the AO u/s 201(1)/201(1A) for the years under consideration and upholding his impugned order, we dismiss the appeals filed by the Revenue.
In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2004 (6) TMI 278
Issues:
1. Penalty under section 271A for non-maintenance of books of account.
2. Compliance with penalty notices and justification for non-maintenance of books of account.
3. Interpretation of legal provisions regarding maintenance of books of account and computation of income.
4. Applicability of Circular by CBDT for computation of income.
5. Consideration of relevant case law in determining the penalty.
Issue 1: Penalty under section 271A for non-maintenance of books of account:
The assessee filed a return of income exceeding the threshold limit, leading to penalty proceedings under section 271A of the IT Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings as the assessee did not maintain books of account as required by section 44AA. The AO imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,000, which was confirmed by the CIT(A), prompting the appeal.
Issue 2: Compliance with penalty notices and justification for non-maintenance of books of account:
The AO issued show-cause notices for non-compliance with the requirement to maintain books of account. The appellant argued that the notices were not received, and the compliance with the hearing date was acknowledged by the AO. The appellant contended that the penalty notices were not duly complied with due to reasons beyond their control, seeking cancellation of the penalty.
Issue 3: Interpretation of legal provisions regarding maintenance of books of account and computation of income:
The appellant maintained records of bank transactions, debtors, creditors, investments, and withdrawals, from which the balance sheet was prepared. The appellant argued that the method of computation based on the Circular by CBDT satisfied the conditions of section 44AA(1) as income was deduced from the details maintained, challenging the imposition of penalty under section 271A.
Issue 4: Applicability of Circular by CBDT for computation of income:
The appellant relied on a Circular by CBDT recommending the net worth basis for income computation, stating that the method followed by the appellant aligned with this Circular. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation, emphasizing that the appellant met the requirements of section 44AA(1) by maintaining details for income computation, ultimately leading to the cancellation of the penalty.
Issue 5: Consideration of relevant case law in determining the penalty:
The Tribunal considered the judgment of Tribunal, Chandigarh 'A' Bench in Asstt. CIT vs. Anil Luthra, where a similar issue was addressed, leading to the cancellation of the penalty. Relying on this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and allowed the appeal of the assessee, cancelling the penalty imposed by the AO.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing the compliance with legal provisions, the method of income computation, and the applicability of relevant Circular and case law in determining the penalty for non-maintenance of books of account.
-
2004 (6) TMI 277
Condonation of delay - filing an application for registration u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that it is a case where appellant-society deserves to succeed. The appellant was registered in the year 1957 i.e. at a time when IT Act, 1961 and its ss. 11 and 12 were not there. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the plausible explanation of the appellant that the office bearers of the appellant-society could not have had any reason to see the applicability of the provisions of such non-existing enactment or its sections or otherwise take into account taxability aspect of the appellant-society. Requirement of registration was however brought by Finance Act, 1972 w.e.f1st April, 1973. Explanation of the appellant-society that when the office bearers and their successors were not conscious as to the application of taxability aspect under the IT Act, 1961, there was possibility and plausibility for them to have skipped the requirement of registration brought in by the amendment to the sections dealing with taxability aspect. This factor cannot be brushed aside that this situation of ignorance remained there well over 15 years.
We have seen the memorandum of association of the appellant-society placed in the paper book and it is seen that the objective of the appellant-society is national integration and to improve social, economical and educational status of primary teachers. DIT himself has granted the registration to the appellant-society which means that its aims and objects have been found charitable by the DIT. The receipts in the hands of the appellant-society are by way of grants and contributions and the receipts have substantially been spent on administration and holding seminars and workshops and related material in furtherance of aims and objectives. These facts are evident from the copies of audited P&L a/c filed in the paper book. Though it is commonly understood that everybody knows the law but Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case reported [1978 (12) TMI 45 - SUPREME COURT] that there is no such maxim known to law. Therefore, the office bearers of the society which keep on changing every two three years can be believed to have ignored the provision of law and entertained bona fide belief as to the compliance of all required statutory formalities by their predecessors. This situation and such explanation of the appellant is not something which is improbable. This aspect of the matter also cannot be lost sight of that there was no profit motive of the appellant-society and office bearers of the society are out of the primary teachers only with no knowledge of the nuances of IT law.
Therefore, we find that there existed sufficient reasons for not filing application of registration in time and therefore there was genuine and bona fide ground for delay in filing the application for registration from 1st April, 1973 till 31st March, 2000 which DIT ought to have condoned and hence his order is reversed and delay is hereby condoned from 1st April, 1973.
In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2004 (6) TMI 276
Issues:
Validity of reassessment proceedings under section 148 based on declarations under Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme (VDIS) and the withdrawal of declarations.
Analysis:
The judgment addresses the common issue of the validity of reassessment proceedings based on declarations under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme (VDIS). The assessees made disclosures of income under VDIS but failed to pay the tax as required by the scheme. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under section 148 for the years under consideration. The assessees filed returns disclosing nil income, claiming that the declarations were withdrawn. The AO assessed the income based on the declarations. The validity of assessments under section 148 was challenged, arguing that declarations under VDIS did not constitute material for issuing notices under section 148. The CIT(A) upheld the assessments, stating that the declarations and affidavits were relevant material for assessment purposes.
The Tribunal considered the provisions of the Finance Act, 1997, related to VDIS. Section 67(2) of the Act stated that if tax was not paid within the specified period, the declaration would be deemed never to have been made under the scheme. The Tribunal emphasized that the consequences of non-compliance with payment requirements were mandatory. The Tribunal also referred to a Supreme Court case highlighting the strict compliance required under VDIS. The Tribunal held that the deeming provisions under section 67(2) applied only to the scheme and not to the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the defaulting declarant could not argue against taxation under section 147 based on the non-existence of declarations under VDIS.
The Tribunal further noted that the declarations and affidavits of the assessees constituted material for initiating reassessment under section 147. The argument that the declarations were withdrawn was rejected, as there was no evidence of withdrawal and no provision for withdrawal under the scheme. Additionally, an additional ground regarding the non-service of a notice under section 148 for a specific assessment year was raised. The Tribunal set aside the order for that year, directing verification of the service from the assessment record. Ultimately, most appeals were dismissed, except for one allowed for statistical purposes.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings based on declarations under VDIS, emphasizing the relevance of the declarations and affidavits as material for assessment purposes. The judgment highlighted the strict compliance requirements under VDIS and the limited scope of deeming provisions under the scheme. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the statutory provisions and legal principles governing the VDIS scheme and reassessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act.
-
2004 (6) TMI 275
Issues:
Cross-appeals against penalty reduction under s. 272A(2)(g) for financial year 1995-96.
Analysis:
1. The case involved cross-appeals by the assessee and the Revenue against the penalty reduction under s. 272A(2)(g) for the financial year 1995-96. The penalty was reduced from Rs. 4,99,200 to Rs. 24,272 by the CIT(A).
2. The deductor firm faced penalties due to late issue of TDS certificates, with the Jt. CIT alleging a delay of 4,992 days in issuing 35 certificates. The assessee explained that certificates were issued on time but were undated in the office copies due to clerical errors. The Jt. CIT imposed the penalty, stating the assessee failed to prove timely issuance of certificates or provide reasonable cause for the delay.
3. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, noting the delay and lack of evidence for timely issuance. However, the CIT(A) restricted the penalty to Rs. 24,272 based on a retrospective amendment to s. 272A(2)(g), citing a Tribunal decision.
4. The Revenue appealed against the retrospective application of the penalty restriction, while the assessee challenged the quantum of penalty upheld by the CIT(A).
5. The ITAT Delhi-B held that the penalty under s. 272A(2)(g) was not justified in this case. Citing judicial precedents, the tribunal emphasized that penalties should not be imposed for technical breaches or bona fide errors. The onus was on the assessee to prove reasonable cause for the delay, which was considered discharged based on the preponderance of probabilities.
6. The tribunal found the assessee's conduct bona fide as TDS was deducted and deposited on time, and TDS returns were filed promptly. The undated TDS certificates accompanying the returns did not warrant a penalty, especially when payees had acknowledged timely receipt and tax credits. The tribunal criticized the Jt. CIT for rushing to penalize without verifying the facts adequately.
7. Consequently, the ITAT Delhi-B canceled the penalty, ruling that the procedural deficiency of undated certificates did not warrant the imposition of a penalty under s. 272A(2)(g). As a result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The retrospective aspect of the penalty amendment was deemed academic and not decided upon due to the penalty cancellation.
-
2004 (6) TMI 274
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Impact of retrospective amendment to section 80P(2)(a)(iii) by the Income-tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1998.
3. Applicability of the new law to completed assessments.
4. Rectification of the Tribunal's order under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act.
5. Tribunal's power to review versus rectification of mistakes apparent from the record.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to Deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii):
The assessee, a cooperative society, claimed a deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) for income derived from marketing the produce of its members. Initially, the Assessing Officer denied this deduction, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Assam Cooperative Apex Marketing Society Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1993] 201 ITR 338, which interpreted "agricultural produce of its members" as produce grown by its members. However, the Supreme Court later reversed this decision in Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 814, holding that the phrase "produce of its members" included produce belonging to members, regardless of whether they grew it.
2. Impact of Retrospective Amendment:
The Income-tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1998, amended section 80P(2)(a)(iii) retrospectively from April 1, 1968, to specify that the deduction applies only to the marketing of agricultural produce grown by its members. This amendment effectively nullified the Supreme Court's decision in Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd.'s case by clarifying that the deduction is only available for produce grown by the members.
3. Applicability of the New Law to Completed Assessments:
The respondent argued that the retrospective amendment could not apply to completed assessments, citing the Supreme Court's decision in National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. v. Union of India [2003] 260 ITR 548. The Court held that the amendment was a new law, not modifying the existing law, and did not apply to completed assessments. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the retrospective amendment by fiction is deemed to be in force at the relevant time, and thus, the Tribunal's earlier decision was inconsistent with the amended law.
4. Rectification of the Tribunal's Order under Section 254(2):
The revenue filed a miscellaneous petition under section 254(2) for rectification of the Tribunal's order, arguing that the order was based on a law that was subsequently amended retrospectively. The Tribunal held that the retrospective amendment created a mistake apparent from the record, which justified rectification. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in M.K. Venkatachalam, ITO v. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1958] 34 ITR 143, which stated that a mistake of law apparent from the record could be rectified.
5. Tribunal's Power to Review versus Rectification:
The respondent contended that the Tribunal had no power to review its own decisions, citing CIT v. K.L. Bhatia [1990] 182 ITR 361 (Delhi). However, the Tribunal clarified that the revenue's application was for rectification of a mistake apparent from the record, not a review. The Tribunal distinguished between retrospective legislation, which creates a mistake apparent from the record, and a Supreme Court pronouncement, which does not have retrospective effect in the same manner.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the retrospective amendment to section 80P(2)(a)(iii) required the denial of the deduction for income from marketing produce not grown by the members. The Tribunal's earlier order was modified accordingly, and the revenue's miscellaneous application was allowed.
-
2004 (6) TMI 273
Applicability of DTAAs with USA & UK regarding payments for repairs - Determination of whether payments made for repairs to foreign companies are taxable as fees for technical services u/s 9(1)(vii)(b) - Whether the income from wet-leasing of aircrafts is earned from sources outside India - Penalty u/s 271C for non-deduction of tax at source - HELD THAT:- It is clarified that the observations were made in the context of a non-resident earning income from a source within India, under section 9(1)(vi)(c), but the principle stated therein is equally applicable to a resident under section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act in determining whether income was earned from a source outside India. Lastly, it is submitted that it is indisputable that payments to the non-resident have been made for overhaul repairs for earning income from the activity of wet-leasing. There is therefore a direct nexus between the payments and the earning of income from sources outside India.
We are satisfied that the assessee's immediate source of income is from the activity of wet-leasing of aircrafts under contracts made outside India to non-resident parties. A miniscule fraction of the lease rental (0.2%) has been earned from an Indian party. But, this cannot detract from the fact that virtually entire income has been earned from non-residents through the activity of wet-leasing of the aircrafts carried on outside India.
The assessee's activity of wet-leasing of aircrafts is a distinct activity which constitutes a source from which income has been earned. Revenue is not correct in identifying this leasing activity with the transportation activity of the lessee, LCAG, Germany.
The sources from which the assessee has earned income are therefore outside India as the income earning activity is situated outside India. It is towards this income earning activity that the payments for repairs have been made outside India. The payments therefore fall within the purview of the exclusionary clause of section 9(1)(vii)(b). Thus, even assuming that the payments for such maintenance repairs were in the nature of fees for technical services, it would not be chargeable to tax.
We allow the assessee's appeal on this point by holding that the payments for repairs of aircrafts was made for earning income from sources outside India and, therefore, to be excluded from 'fees for technical services' under section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act.
Business of wet-leasing of aircrafts - Assessee's business of wet-leasing of aircrafts is composed of a number of operations such as acquisition of aircrafts, wet-leasing, maintenance of crew and engineering personnel, aircrafts maintenance and establishment, etc. It is settled law that profits of a business cannot be said to accrue only in the place where sales take place or the revenue is earned, but they arc embedded in each distinct operation of the business, both on the revenue and the expenditure side. For this legal proposition, we are supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Anglo French Textile Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1953 (12) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT].
Normally, we would have referred the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the figures arid work out the apportionment on a reasonable basis. However, we need not go into this arithmetical exercise because we have already held that the payments made to Technik and other foreign companies for maintenance repairs are not in the nature of fees for technical services as defined in Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii)(b). Further, in any event these payments are not taxable for the reason that they have been made for earning income from sources outside India and therefore fall within exclusionary clause of section 9(1)(vii)(b).
In view of our decision allowing the main ground relating to chargeability of tax, the alternate grounds have become academic. We therefore do not propose to go into them though considerable arguments were advanced on the alternate grounds.
Conclusion: The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The court held that the payments for repairs were not taxable as fees for technical services, the income from wet-leasing was earned from sources outside India, and the penalties u/s 271C were deleted.
-
2004 (6) TMI 272
Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of Rs. 1,00,000 as unexplained cash credit.
2. Addition of Rs. 95,691 as unexplained expenses for marriage.
3. Addition of Rs. 35,00,000 as undisclosed income from property sale.
4. Addition of Rs. 2,09,843 and Rs. 23,065 as unexplained investment in property.
5. Addition of Rs. 10,00,000 as unaccounted receipt from sale of a residential plot.
6. Addition of Rs. 22,10,000 as unaccounted receipt from property sale.
7. Addition of Rs. 1,70,000 as unexplained investment by estimating property purchase price.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Treatment of Rs. 1,00,000 as Unexplained Cash Credit:
The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 1,00,000 treated as unexplained cash credit by the AO, arguing it was an advance for a flat booking. The AO based the addition on a seized receipt of Rs. 75,000, but the Tribunal found that the AO could only add Rs. 75,000 as unexplained investment if the explanation was doubted. The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 1,00,000, stating that the AO cannot partially accept the explanation.
2. Addition of Rs. 95,691 as Unexplained Expenses for Marriage:
The AO estimated marriage expenses at Rs. 3,00,000 against the assessee's declaration of Rs. 2,04,309, adding the difference as undisclosed income. The Tribunal found that the AO's estimation lacked basis and emphasized that undisclosed income in block assessments must be based on documentary evidence, not estimates. The addition was deleted.
3. Addition of Rs. 35,00,000 as Undisclosed Income from Property Sale:
The AO added Rs. 35,00,000 based on a draft agreement indicating cash receipt for a property sale. The assessee admitted the agreement but denied the cash receipt. The Tribunal upheld the AO's addition, noting the agreement's clear terms and the assessee's failure to provide contrary evidence. The Tribunal found the agreement valid and the cash receipt credible.
4. Addition of Rs. 2,09,843 and Rs. 23,065 as Unexplained Investment in Property:
The AO added these amounts based on discrepancies between seized documents and the assessee's books. The Tribunal noted the assessee's explanations were not examined by the AO. The Tribunal set aside the AO's order, directing a fresh adjudication considering the assessee's explanations.
5. Addition of Rs. 10,00,000 as Unaccounted Receipt from Sale of a Residential Plot:
The AO added Rs. 10,00,000 based on a seized document interpreted as a booking receipt. The Tribunal found the document was a mere proposal and not evidence of receipt. The Tribunal noted the affidavit and statement of Shri R.K. Anand denying the payment. The addition was deleted.
6. Addition of Rs. 22,10,000 as Unaccounted Receipt from Property Sale:
The AO added Rs. 22,10,000 based on receipts and ledger accounts indicating cash payments. The assessee initially admitted receiving advances but later claimed they were loans. The Tribunal upheld the AO's addition, noting the assessee's failure to provide evidence of refund and the contradiction in explanations.
7. Addition of Rs. 1,70,000 as Unexplained Investment by Estimating Property Purchase Price:
The AO estimated the property purchase price at Rs. 2,75,000 against the declared Rs. 1,05,000, adding the difference as undisclosed income. The Tribunal found the AO's estimation lacked basis and emphasized that the declared value should not be rejected without cogent evidence. The addition was deleted.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting several additions while upholding others based on the evidence and explanations provided.
-
2004 (6) TMI 271
Purchase and sale of properties - sustenance of addition account of the payments received from bookies - search action u/s 132(1) - sale consideration of properties was higher than shown in the sale deeds - addition made on the basis of statement - Addition on the basis of the paper No. 25 of Annex. A3 - commission to be charged by the broker - HELD THAT:- In these sale deeds the sale price/purchase price has been mentioned and according to the assessee this is the actual price paid by him for purchasing the property or the price received by him on sale of plots at Gurgaon. The AO has not examined the purchasers of properties from the assessee or the sellers from whom the assessee had purchased the properties. Regarding the "on" money or the money given beyond the consideration mentioned in the sale deeds, there is no evidence on record. Shri Parvesh Kochhar is a third party who is neither buyer nor seller of the properties. The Department has also not made any reference to the valuation cell and has not even tried to find out the sale value of any adjoining plot or building in the adjoining area sold or purchased during the relevant period. Some of the properties also relate to builders, but no enquiry has been made from such builders even.
We are of the considered opinion that the addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) on the basis above, cannot be maintained. We are further of the view that the matter has not been properly investigated by the AO inasmuch as the buyers and sellers are not called for examination and for verification of the actual price paid to them or received by the assessee. Thus, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the matter to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, orders of authorities below on the issue in question are set aside and the matter is restored to the file AO to decide the issue afresh after making proper investigation and enquiry. While doing so, the AO shall also take into consideration the valuation report mentioned above and shall deal with the same accordingly and as per law. Accordingly, ground Nos. 2 and 3 stand allowed for statistical purposes.
Sustenance of addition account of the payments received from bookies - In the present case no incriminating document or other evidence was found during the course of search from the possession of the assessee to establish link between bookies and players. Further, the addition has been made on the basis of statement of Mr. Mukesh Gupta, but neither the copy of his statement was provided to the assessee nor he was confronted against the same and, therefore, the evidence against which the assessee was not confronted cannot be taken into consideration because such procedure is against the settled rules of natural justice. In our view, therefore, the addition made on the basis of statement of Mukesh Kumar Gupta or on estimate basis cannot be upheld. Accordingly, ground taken by the assessee is allowed and the addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) is deleted.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2004 (6) TMI 270
Issues Involved:
1. Claim of liability of Rs. 88,69,000 as a debt owed by the assessee.
2. Nexus between the receipt of share application money and its utilization in acquiring immovable property.
3. Applicability of section 2(m) of the Wealth Tax (W.T.) Act to the share application money.
4. Relationship between the company and the applicants for shares under the Companies Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Claim of Liability of Rs. 88,69,000 as a Debt Owed by the Assessee:
The primary issue revolves around whether the share application money received by the assessee could be allowed as a liability under section 2(m) of the W.T. Act. The assessee argued that the share application money received was a debt owed as on the relevant valuation dates since shares had not been allotted. The assessee contended that until the allotment of shares, there existed a debtor-creditor relationship between the company and the applicants, making the share application money a debt owed. The assessee relied on various legal precedents and accounting standards to support this claim.
2. Nexus Between Receipt of Share Application Money and Its Utilization in Acquiring Immovable Property:
The assessee received share application money amounting to Rs. 1,08,18,995 from four parties and utilized it for acquiring immovable property. The Tribunal found a direct nexus between the receipt of the share application money and its utilization in acquiring the property. The factual finding recorded by the lower authorities to the contrary was deemed against the material on record and thus, not accepted. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had clearly proved the nexus between the receipt of share application money and its utilization in acquiring the immovable property.
3. Applicability of Section 2(m) of the Wealth Tax (W.T.) Act:
The Tribunal had to determine if the share application money could be considered a liability under section 2(m) of the W.T. Act. The assessee argued that share application money was a debt owed until shares were allotted, and thus, should be deductible as a liability when computing net wealth. The Tribunal noted that under the W.T. Act, a liability to be deductible should be clear, ascertained, and defined. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Lucas T.V.S. Ltd., which held that share application money would become a debt only when shares cannot be allotted and the company is required to return the money. The Tribunal concluded that the share application money in this case did not represent a debt in praesenti, as the company intended to allot shares and the contingency of returning the money never arose.
4. Relationship Between the Company and the Applicants for Shares Under the Companies Act:
The Tribunal examined the stages of share issuance under the Companies Act, which include resolutions by the Board of Directors and General Body Meeting, offer of shares, acceptance of the offer by applicants, allotment of shares, issuance of share certificates, and return of allotment with the Registrar of Companies. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had completed the initial stages and intended to allot shares to the applicants. The Tribunal emphasized that the company had utilized the share application money for acquiring properties, indicating that the money was treated as part of the company's capital and not as a debt owed. The Tribunal concluded that the share application money could not be treated as a debt owed by the company since the company had intended to issue shares and the situation requiring the return of the money did not arise.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 1998-99, disallowing the claim of liability. For the assessment year 1997-98, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the order of the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the revenue's appeal for the assessment year 1997-98 was allowed, and the assessee's appeal for the assessment year 1998-99 was dismissed.
-
2004 (6) TMI 269
Issues Involved:
1. Whether rental income should be classified as business income or income from house property.
2. Whether other income should be classified as business income or income from other sources.
3. Eligibility for set off of brought forward business losses against rental income and other income.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Rental Income:
The primary issue is whether the rental income of Rs. 5,58,035 should be treated as business income or income from house property. The assessee argued that since the company is engaged in the business of leasing, selling, and renting real estate properties, rental income should be considered business income. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A) disagreed, stating that the properties in question, HS-28 and HS-32, Kailash Colony, New Delhi, were not used for business purposes but merely let out, thus classifying the income under the head 'Income from House Property.' The Supreme Court's decision in East India Housing and Land Development Trust v. CIT and the Calcutta High Court's decision in CIT v. Bengal Jute Mills supported this view, emphasizing that rental income derived from property ownership should be taxed as income from house property, not business income.
2. Classification of Other Income:
The second issue concerns whether the amount of Rs. 6,92,220 should be classified as business income or income from other sources. The AO noted that the assessee's primary business was dealing in real estate, not hiring out cars or computers. The income from car hire, computer hire, and commission was therefore assessed under the head 'Income from Other Sources.' The CIT(A), however, treated these receipts as business income, allowing the set off of brought forward business losses. The tribunal found that the assessee had shown these incomes under 'other sources' and could not retrospectively claim them as business income for the purpose of set off under section 72.
3. Eligibility for Set Off of Brought Forward Business Losses:
The core of the dispute is whether brought forward business losses can be set off against rental income and other income. Section 72 of the Income-tax Act allows set off only against business income. Since the rental income was classified under 'Income from House Property' and other income under 'Income from Other Sources,' the tribunal held that these could not be set off against brought forward business losses. The tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT and the Calcutta High Court's decision in Bengal Jute Mills Co. Ltd., which reinforced that income from house property cannot be treated as business income for the purpose of set off under section 72.
Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s order allowing the set off of brought forward business losses against rental income and other income was contrary to the provisions of section 72 of the Income-tax Act. The appeal of the revenue was allowed, and the set off was disallowed. The tribunal's decision was based on the clear distinction between business income and income from house property/other sources as outlined in the Income-tax Act and supported by judicial precedents.
............
|
9911796707
