|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 664 Records
-
2006 (11) TMI 320
Whether a particular activity amounts to "manufacture" or not?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Had it been only that the goods notified are brought into the market area to be covered by the second category then the stand of the respondents would have been acceptable. But the further condition it must be "used for processing" shows that the emphasis is on end-user. In this case that makes the difference. Therefore, the appellant is correct in its stand that levy on the notified agricultural produce being brought within market area where end-user is manufacture does not attract levy of market fee.
-
2006 (11) TMI 319
Rejection of books of accounts - best judgment assessment turnover was enhanced
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The expression "place of business" is defined in section 2(c)(1). The definition is an inclusive one and includes any place where a dealer keeps his books of account. That being so, non-production of the books of account at the time of survey is a factor which can be taken into consideration by the assessing officer while examining the return to find out whether the same is incorrect or incomplete. Production of books of account at the time of assessment does not take away the effect of non- production at the time of survey. Such non-production is a relevant factor which can be considered by the assessing officer while considering whether the books of account are to be accepted as to have been maintained in the regular course of business. It is incumbent upon the assessee to offer plausible explanation as to why they were not produced at the time of survey. The burden is on him to show as to why no adverse inference should be drawn.
-
2006 (11) TMI 302
Punishment for misconduct of employee - Held that:- Interfering with the quantum of punishment of the respondent herein, is not called for. In our opinion, the respondent has no legal right to continue in the Corporation. As held by this Court, in a catena of judgments that the loss of confidence occupies the primary factor and not the amount of money and that sympathy and generosity cannot be a factor which is permissible in law in such matters. When the employee is found guilty of theft, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of removal. In such cases, there is no place of generosity or place of sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering with the quantum of the punishment.
-
2006 (11) TMI 299
Whether by reason of the repealing provisions contained in the 1994 Act, the Regulations framed under the 1953 Act survives and consequently the exercise of powers under Regulation 13 shall be void ab initio?
Held that:- Appeal allowed in part. We have, therefore, no other option but to hold that Regulation 13 would not apply to the case of Respondent. However, despite the same, the interest of justice would be subserved if the nature of relief to Respondent granted by the High Court is upheld.
We, therefore, hold that although Regulation 13 is not unconstitutional but the same is not applicable in case of Respondent. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view the fact that she had put in 20 years of service she be paid eight years' salary towards both back wages as well as for loss of employment in future. This will be on the basis of her last drawn basic pay and dearness allowance. The Corporation will pay Respondent the amount refunded by her towards the provident fund and gratuity at the rate of interest provided under the Statutes governing them. The relief granted to Respondent shall, in our opinion, subserve the interest of justice.
-
2006 (11) TMI 288
Issues involved: Interpretation of Section 65(11) of the Finance Act, 1994 for taxation of ATM-related services, applicability of Service Tax on equipment leasing, registration and de-registration for banking and financial services, plea of limitation, quantification of tax liability.
Interpretation of Section 65(11) of the Finance Act, 1994:
The case involved the rendering of ATM-related services by the appellants to banks and financial institutions, with a dispute period from 16-8-2002 to 31-3-2005. The lower authority demanded Service Tax based on the services falling under the definition of "Banking and other Financial Services" u/s 65(11) of the Finance Act, 1994. The contention revolved around whether the leasing of ATMs constituted "equipment leasing" under the said provision, which was crucial for tax liability determination.
Applicability of Service Tax on equipment leasing:
The Commissioner found that the appellants owned the ATMs, leased them to customer-banks, and provided electronic connectivity, collecting monthly charges. The argument was made for considering this as "equipment leasing" falling under "banking and other financial services." However, the appellants argued that for Service Tax to apply on "equipment leasing," it must be shown as a financial leasing service, which was not established in the show-cause notices or orders. Reference to literature from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India was made, but not cited by the appellants, leading to a debate on the nature of the leasing service provided.
Registration and de-registration for banking and financial services:
The appellants had obtained registration for "banking and other financial services" before the dispute period but later applied for de-registration. The argument was made that services rendered before the introduction of Service Tax on ATM-related services should not be taxable. However, the department contended that registration was obtained well before the dispute period, making the appellants liable for tax during that time. The issue of time-bar against the tax demand was also raised, with the appellants claiming the notices were issued beyond the normal limitation period.
Plea of limitation and quantification of tax liability:
The show-cause notices invoked Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 for demanding Service Tax for the extended period. The appellants argued against the quantum of tax demanded, pointing out numerical errors in the assessable value calculation. The plea of financial hardships was not raised, and the tribunal directed the appellants to pre-deposit a specified amount within a given timeframe for compliance.
Conclusion:
The tribunal found no prima facie case against the demand of Service Tax on ATM-related services, considering the leasing of ATMs as falling within the definition of "banking and other financial services." The registration obtained by the appellants supported their liability for tax during the dispute period. The plea of limitation was not established, and the appellants were directed to pre-deposit a specific amount pending further proceedings.
-
2006 (11) TMI 282
Cenvat/Modvat - documents for availing credit - Rule 57E of erstwhile central Excise Rule, 1944 can not be invoked unless goods removed by way of fraud, collusion and willful mis-statement or suppression of facts. Held that - No finding or discussion in impugned order of Tribunal regarding illicit removal of goods from warehouse. Rule 57E not invocable. No case made out for admission, appeal dismissed.
-
2006 (11) TMI 281
Custom House Agent- The respondent was holding the Custom House Agent licence bearing CHA licence No. 11/430 issued under these regulations. The same was suspended by the appellant by order in view of serious allegations of misconduct against the Firm for the act of its employee one Rehman Iqbal Shaikh authorised under Regulation 8 of these regulations (referred as Regulation 8 employee). The allegations were arising out of two incidents viz. (i) misdeclaration of the value of a Volkswagen Car and deliberately giving wrong name of country of export and also of the importer to avoid the correct duty. This was in April 2005 at Air Cargo Complex at Sahar and (ii) the other incident was in May 2005. That was concerning the outright smuggling of a Mercedes Benz Car at JNPT Nhava Sheva. Held that- employee had no authority to go into custom area except as regulation 8 employee of firm. Department entitled to interfere that CHA party to entire episode. Principles of vicarious liability of master applicable commissioner rightly revoked licence as responsible for happenings in custom area. Tribunal not expected to interfere on basis of own notions difficulties of CHA or employees. Tribunal not justified in setting aside revocation.
-
2006 (11) TMI 279
Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment and assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147.
2. Validity of reference to the Valuation Officer under s. 55A.
3. Use of DVO's report as evidence.
4. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
Summary:
Reopening of Assessment and Assumption of Jurisdiction u/s 147:
The Department challenged the CIT(A)'s decision that the reopening of assessment and assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 was bad in law, leading to the annulment of the order u/s 143(3) r/w s. 147. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not consider the post-1989 provisions of s. 147, which allow reopening even if the assessee had fully disclosed all material facts, unless covered by the proviso to s. 147. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's belief that income had escaped assessment, based on the DVO's report, was sufficient for initiating proceedings u/s 147 within four years of the relevant assessment year.
Validity of Reference to the Valuation Officer under s. 55A:
The CIT(A) held that the reference to the Valuation Officer under s. 55A was invalid as it was made when no proceeding was pending, and it was contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Smt. Amiya Bala Paul vs. CIT. The Tribunal, however, noted that the AO can consider the DVO's report as a piece of evidence, even if the reference was not strictly in accordance with s. 55A, as long as it was relevant to forming a belief that income had escaped assessment.
Use of DVO's Report as Evidence:
The Tribunal highlighted that the AO is not bound by strict rules of evidence and can rely on material that may not be admissible under the Indian Evidence Act. The DVO's report, showing a higher cost of construction than declared by the assessee, provided the AO with 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's belief need not be based on final adjudication at the stage of initiating proceedings u/s 147.
Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The Tribunal acknowledged that evidence collected without the assessee's knowledge and used against them without an opportunity to rebut it would violate principles of natural justice. However, in this case, the Tribunal found that the AO had sufficient grounds to initiate proceedings based on the DVO's report and directed the CIT(A) to re-examine the case on merits, ensuring that the assessee is given an opportunity to present their case.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order annulling the assessment u/s 147 and restored the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination on merits, considering the Supreme Court's decision in Smt. Amiya Bala Paul and ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice. The Department's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the assessee's cross-objection was also partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2006 (11) TMI 276
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for alleged concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
2. Legitimacy of the assessee's claim for depreciation on forging rolls.
3. Assessment of whether the transaction between the assessee and M/s. Prakash Industries Ltd. was genuine or a sham.
4. Examination of the evidences provided by the assessee to substantiate the claim of depreciation.
5. Evaluation of the assessee's explanation for the claimed depreciation and its bona fide nature.
6. Analysis of the role of third-party institutions like Tata Finance and Chartered Engineers in the transaction.
7. Determination of whether the assessee disclosed all material facts and information related to the claim of depreciation.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Imposition of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
The penalty of Rs. 19,05,582 was imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1994-95, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The penalty was based on the alleged furnishing of wrong particulars of income and concealment of income regarding depreciation and related expenses on assets leased to M/s. Prakash Industries Ltd. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, finding that the assessee's claim of depreciation was not genuine and that the explanation offered by the assessee was not bona fide.
2. Legitimacy of the Assessee's Claim for Depreciation:
The assessee claimed depreciation on forging rolls worth Rs. one crore, which were allegedly purchased from M/s. Prakash Industries Ltd. and leased back to the same company. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim, concluding that the assessee did not take physical delivery of the forging rolls and could not establish their existence or use for business purposes. The Tribunal supported this view, noting that the assessee failed to provide conclusive evidence of the purchase and use of the forging rolls.
3. Genuine or Sham Transaction:
The transaction was scrutinized to determine its genuineness. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) found that the sale and leaseback transaction was not genuine but merely a financial arrangement. The Tribunal agreed, highlighting inconsistencies and contradictions in the assessee's documentation and the lack of physical identification of the assets. The Tribunal concluded that the transaction was a sham designed to claim depreciation benefits.
4. Examination of Evidence:
The assessee provided various documents, including invoices, payment proofs, confirmatory letters, insurance policies, and certificates from Chartered Engineers and Chartered Accountants. However, the Tribunal found these documents insufficient to prove the existence and use of the forging rolls. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the dates and amounts mentioned in the documents, and the inability of the Chartered Accountant to identify the assets during physical verification.
5. Bona Fide Nature of the Explanation:
The Tribunal examined whether the assessee's explanation for the claimed depreciation was bona fide. It concluded that the explanation was not bona fide, as the assessee failed to provide credible evidence of the purchase and use of the forging rolls. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee's explanation was found to be false, and the assessee did not disclose all material facts related to the claim.
6. Role of Third-Party Institutions:
The assessee argued that the transaction was recommended by Tata Finance Ltd., a reputed organization. However, the Tribunal held that the involvement of Tata Finance alone was not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal noted that Tata Finance did not provide any independent verification of the assets' existence and use, and the assessee could not rely solely on this recommendation to substantiate its claim.
7. Disclosure of Material Facts:
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not disclose all material facts and information related to the claim of depreciation. The assessee's failure to provide adequate and credible evidence of the purchase and use of the forging rolls led to the conclusion that the assessee concealed particulars of income. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, finding that the assessee did not discharge the burden of proof under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c).
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, upholding the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of depreciation was not genuine, the transaction was a sham, and the explanation offered by the assessee was not bona fide. The assessee failed to disclose all material facts and provide credible evidence to substantiate its claim, leading to the confirmation of the penalty.
-
2006 (11) TMI 274
Issues involved: Validity of search warrant and Panchnama u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act.
Summary:
The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT MADRAS-D involved the validity of search warrants and Panchnama issued u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act for the block assessment year. The common issues in the appeals were clubbed together for convenience.
Validity of Search Warrant and Panchnama:
The assessee contended that the common warrant issued in joint names and the common Panchnama were invalid as the singular noun and verbs used in the relevant sections indicated actions against a single individual only. The Departmental Representative argued that the assessee cannot appeal against actions u/s 132 and can only challenge assessment orders u/s 158BC. The Tribunal noted that the authorities had reason to believe in undisclosed income, and the warrant and Panchnama were issued against the concerned assessees separately. The authorities had applied their minds, and the actions were deemed valid. The Tribunal cited legal provisions and previous judgments to support the issuance of a common warrant in cases involving multiple individuals. The arguments of the Departmental Representative were upheld, and the case law cited by the assessee was deemed irrelevant to the present case.
This comprehensive summary covers the issues involved in the legal judgment regarding the validity of search warrants and Panchnama u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act.
-
2006 (11) TMI 272
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation on assets transferred to the Clutch Unit.
2. Disallowance of royalty payments.
3. Restriction of deduction u/s 80HH.
4. Inclusion of excise duty, sales-tax, and scrap sales in total turnover for computing relief u/s 80HHC.
5. Exclusion of 90% of interest, rent, and other income for computing relief u/s 80HHC.
6. Deletion of addition for expenditure on consultancy, training, and structural changes.
Summary:
Ground No. (1): Disallowance of Depreciation on Assets Transferred to the Clutch Unit
The assessee transferred the Clutch Unit to its subsidiary and claimed depreciation on these assets. The AO disallowed the depreciation, noting that the sale consideration was not credited to the block of assets. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the assessee cannot claim depreciation on assets no longer owned or used for business purposes, as per s. 32 and s. 43(6).
Ground No. (2): Disallowance of Royalty Payments
The AO disallowed Rs. 2,29,500 of royalty payment due to late TDS payment and Rs. 20,000 for royalty on trademark as capital expenditure. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, citing non-compliance with r. 30 r/w s. 40(a)(i) and the capital nature of the trademark royalty.
Ground No. (3): Restriction of Deduction u/s 80HH
The AO excluded interest receipts and other items from the deduction u/s 80HH, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal upheld this decision, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT, which states that such income is not derived from the industrial undertaking.
Ground No. (4): Inclusion of Excise Duty, Sales-Tax, and Scrap Sales in Total Turnover for Computing Relief u/s 80HHC
The Tribunal directed the AO not to include excise duty and sales-tax in the total turnover for computing relief u/s 80HHC, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Sundaram Fasteners Ltd. However, scrap sales were to be included in total turnover and business profits, as per the Chennai Bench's decision in Jt. CIT vs. Virudhunagar Textiles Mills Ltd.
Ground No. (5): Exclusion of 90% of Interest, Rent, and Other Income for Computing Relief u/s 80HHC
The AO excluded various incomes from business profits for deduction u/s 80HHC. The CIT(A) directed the AO to exclude only 90% of net interest and examine other items. The Tribunal, referencing CIT vs. V. Chinnapandi, held that 90% of gross interest and rent must be excluded from business profits for deduction u/s 80HHC, and upheld the CIT(A)'s remittance of other items to the AO.
Ground No. (6): Deletion of Addition for Expenditure on Consultancy, Training, and Structural Changes
The AO treated the expenditure as capital in nature, but the CIT(A) allowed it as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing its earlier ruling in Rane Madras Ltd., stating that such expenditures are revenue in nature.
Conclusion:
The appeals by the assessee and the Revenue were partly allowed, with specific directions provided for each ground.
-
2006 (11) TMI 269
Issues:
1. Sustained addition of Rs. 95,000 based on estimation of income from patients and consultation charges.
2. Addition of undisclosed salary paid to employees.
3. Addition of salary paid to the wife of the assessee.
4. Addition on account of rental income.
5. Credit of Rs. 1,35,000 surrendered by the assessee.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Sustained addition of Rs. 95,000
- The assessee, a Registered Medical Practitioner, surrendered Rs. 1,35,000 during a survey for the assessment year 2001-02.
- The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the books of the assessee and estimated income based on patient receipts and consultation charges.
- The CIT(A) reduced the addition to Rs. 95,967 considering 45 patients per day and profit on medicines.
- The ITAT upheld the rejection of books but deleted the addition, citing the certificate from the Ayurvedic Chikitsak Sangh and lack of concrete evidence supporting the AO's estimation.
Issue 2: Undisclosed salary paid to employees
- The AO added Rs. 15,000 as undisclosed income due to discrepancies in recorded and stated salaries of employees.
- The ITAT deleted this addition, noting the genuine payment of salaries and obtaining signatures of employees on payment vouchers.
Issue 3: Salary paid to the wife of the assessee
- The AO considered the salary of Rs. 2,500 per month paid to the wife of the assessee as unreasonable.
- The ITAT allowed the salary, emphasizing that the wife confirmed receiving the salary for work done.
Issue 4: Addition on account of rental income
- The ITAT allowed a 1/3rd deduction from the rental income of Rs. 8,400 towards maintenance, sustaining the remaining amount.
Issue 5: Credit of Rs. 1,35,000 surrendered by the assessee
- The ITAT directed the credit of the surrendered amount of Rs. 1,35,000, considering the circumstances and the assessee's inability to prove additional income.
In conclusion, the ITAT partly allowed the appeal, deleting the sustained addition of Rs. 95,000, undisclosed salary addition, and confirming the rental income deduction. The ITAT also directed the credit of the surrendered amount of Rs. 1,35,000.
-
2006 (11) TMI 268
Issues:
The issues involved in this case are related to the legality of survey proceedings, estimation of professional income, addition on account of low household withdrawals, and unexplained investment in the construction of a building.
Survey Proceedings:
The additional legal grounds challenged the survey proceedings conducted by an Inspector, questioning the authority under the IT Act and the validity of statements recorded. The Tribunal dismissed the first ground as the survey was conducted under the authority of the ITO by the Inspector. However, the Tribunal allowed the third ground as the statements recorded during the survey lacked authenticity due to missing details and signatures.
Estimation of Professional Income:
The AO made additions to the professional income of the doctor based on discrepancies in receipts and patient consultations. The Tribunal found that without valid evidence, no further estimation could be made, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and partial success of the assessee's cross-objection.
Low Household Withdrawals:
The AO estimated household expenses leading to an addition, which was reduced by the CIT(A). The Tribunal held that the estimations lacked basis and accepted the expenses declared by the assessee, deleting the entire addition in this account.
Unexplained Investment in Building Construction:
The AO made an addition on account of unexplained investment in the construction of a building, which was later reduced and deleted by the CIT(A). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the adoption of local rates and allowed the claim of the assessee regarding expenditure made in two assessment years.
In conclusion, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the cross-objection was partly allowed in this case before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur.
-
2006 (11) TMI 267
Issues Involved:
1. Allowability of deduction u/s 80-IA/80-IB.
2. Reduction in addition made on account of obsolete stores.
Summary:
1. Allowability of Deduction u/s 80-IA/80-IB:
The Revenue's appeal contested the allowability of a deduction of Rs. 77,55,056 claimed u/s 80-IA/80-IB. The assessee derived income from mining, processing, and grinding of minerals, showing consolidated sales of Rs. 43.35 crores with a net profit of Rs. 3.41 crores. The AO denied the deduction, arguing that the activities did not result in a new or different article, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Divisional Dy. CST & Anr. vs. Bherhaghat Mineral Industries. However, the CIT(A) allowed the deduction after considering various judicial precedents. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee's integrated activities of mining, processing, and grinding of Wollastonite and Calcite products amounted to production, thus entitling the assessee to the deduction. The Tribunal distinguished the case from the Supreme Court decision cited by the AO and referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Lucky Minmat (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and CIT vs. Sesa Goa Ltd., which supported the assessee's claim.
2. Reduction in Addition Made on Account of Obsolete Stores:
The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 68,59,108 for obsolete stores written off under 'Plant and machinery repairs'. The AO disallowed the claim, arguing that s. 145A did not permit such valuation and criticized the uniform 5% valuation of items regardless of their purchase date or condition. The CIT(A) partially upheld the AO's decision but enhanced the valuation to 10% based on the Bombay High Court's judgment in Alfa Laval India Ltd. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the valuation at 5% was too low given the subsequent consumption and sale of the stores, which justified a 10% valuation.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues. The order was pronounced in open court on 16th Nov., 2006.
-
2006 (11) TMI 266
Disallowance u/s 37 - Payment of salary - salary paid was excessive - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the finding of learned CIT(A). The assessee has shown better GP rate and has explained the payment of salary. The suspicion of AO that higher salary has been paid on account of relations is not founded on rational reasons. Both these payees are income-tax assessees and have declared the same. Salaries having received by them, which have been accepted by the AO. Both of them were engaged in touring for obtaining orders and the sales have definitely increased. Thus salary of Rs. 5,000 per month to each of them cannot be stated to be on the higher side. In the earlier year, the salary was paid only for 3 months and the salary was Rs. 15,000 for these months to each of them. Anil Kumar has also done similar work for the assessee.
Therefore, deletion of disallowance of salary is hereby confirmed.
Unexplained cash credits - genuineness of credits made in three creditors not proved - HELD THAT:- All the three creditors are trade creditors. All of them are income-tax assessees and they have confirmed this fact by filing their affidavits. All the three have been examined by the AO. In their statements recorded by AO, they have categorically deposed that they had received goods from other concerns against deposits in those concerns and the goods so received have been given to the assessee. We have also gone through their statements, copies of which are placed on the record. In the face of such evidences, we are of the opinion that the rejection of the explanation of assessee by learned AO is unjustified. There is force in the submission of ld AR that the trading result has been accepted by the AO and the purchases and sales have also been accepted and that no sales can be made without any purchase and these three parties have deposited the ground (sic) which have been sold by the assessee and in case the amount of Rs. 5,90,579 (cash credits) is added in the income of the assessee, the GP will give a rate of percentage of 31.86 per cent which is never possible in the business of cloth. This contention of the assessee seems to be logical. In our opinion, nothing more is required in proof from the assessee.
Therefore, we confirm the impugned findings and dismiss this ground of appeal. Both the amounts have been correctly deleted.
Additions on shop expenses and travelling expenses - vouchers for payment of rent - HELD THAT - We are of the considered opinion that the sales of the assessee have increased considerably in this year and the shops were utilized by the assessee. M/s Taparia Enterprises has not done the business during this year. Although in the previous year M/s Taparia Enterprises had used these shops. The AO did not investigate into this claim of the assessee that these shops were used and utilized exclusively for his business although the vouchers were issued in M/s Taparia Enterprises' name
Keeping in view the entire facts of enormous increase in assessee's business and that the AO did not make further enquiries despite the clear stand taken by the assessee with regard to use of these shops for his business, we are of the considered opinion that this expenditure which related wholly and exclusively to the business of the assessee has to be allowed. Therefore, we delete the addition and partly allow the cross-objection.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection is partly allowed.
-
2006 (11) TMI 261
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and jurisdiction of the CIT(A)'s order.
2. Non-compliance with High Court directions by the AO.
3. Consideration of the Tribunal's decision on foreign exchange.
4. Sustaining the addition of Rs. 18,00,000 for unexplained investment.
5. Denial of deduction for confiscated goods and currency.
6. Non-application of Supreme Court and High Court precedents.
Summary:
1. Legality and Jurisdiction of the CIT(A)'s Order:
The assessee challenged the first appellate order on the grounds that it was "illegal, without jurisdiction, bad in law, thus, null and void."
2. Non-compliance with High Court Directions by the AO:
The assessee argued that the AO did not follow the "observations/directions of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan" while completing the assessment.
3. Consideration of Tribunal's Decision on Foreign Exchange:
The assessee contended that the CIT(A) failed to consider the Tribunal's decision dated 2nd April 2003, deeming it "out of scope of consideration in the present assessment."
4. Sustaining the Addition of Rs. 18,00,000 for Unexplained Investment:
The CIT(A) was alleged to have erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 18,00,000 for "alleged unexplained investment in primary gold and US dollars" without considering the concept of real income.
5. Denial of Deduction for Confiscated Goods and Currency:
The assessee claimed that the CIT(A) erred in not allowing the deduction of Rs. 18,00,000 for goods and currency confiscated by customs, contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in "CIT vs. Piara Singh (1980) 124 ITR 40 (SC)."
6. Non-application of Supreme Court and High Court Precedents:
The CIT(A) was criticized for not following the ratio of the Supreme Court in "Piara Singh" and the Rajasthan High Court in "CIT vs. Hiranand (2004) 187 CTR (Raj) 32."
Tribunal's Findings:
Sustaining the Addition of Rs. 18,00,000:
The Tribunal upheld the addition, noting that the assessee was found with primary gold and US dollars during a search. The AO added Rs. 18,00,000 as unexplained investment, which was sustained by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's contention that the High Court directed the AO to follow only the "Piara Singh" decision. Instead, the High Court directed the AO to consider all relevant decisions, including "Piara Singh."
Denial of Deduction for Confiscated Goods and Currency:
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the loss due to confiscation was not allowable. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's distinction between losses from lawful business infractions and inherently unlawful business. The Tribunal cited "Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 350 (SC)" and "Ishwar Das vs. CIT (2000) 244 ITR 146 (All)" to support this view. The Tribunal also noted that the FEMA Tribunal's acquittal of the assessee on penalty grounds did not impact the assessment proceedings.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order on both the addition of Rs. 18,00,000 for unexplained investment and the denial of the deduction for confiscated goods and currency. The grounds raised by the assessee were rejected.
-
2006 (11) TMI 260
Issues:
1. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) questioned by the assessee.
2. Estimation of agricultural income and income from other sources.
3. Enhancement of income in the case of M/s Nathani Carrying Corporation.
4. Validity of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and satisfaction recorded by the assessing officer.
5. Peak balance and disallowance of expenses.
6. Justification of penalty by the Departmental Representative.
7. Applicability of penalty under section 271(1)(c) on estimated income.
Analysis:
1. The assessee contested the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c). The case involved income from a petrol pump, partnership firm, and agricultural sources. The assessing officer alleged unexplained capital and revenue expenses. The CIT(A) estimated agricultural income at Rs. 30,000, reducing the penalty. The assessee argued against penalty on an estimated basis, citing relevant case laws.
2. In the case of M/s Nathani Carrying Corporation, the CIT(A) enhanced the income, which the assessee challenged. The AO relied on the CIT(A)'s findings in reassessment without establishing misuse of expenses. The assessee contended that penalty cannot be based on estimated additions and questioned the lack of satisfaction recorded by the AO for initiating penalty proceedings.
3. The assessing officer's failure to record satisfaction for penalty initiation under section 271(1)(c) was a crucial point. The absence of a valid jurisdiction for penalty imposition on the assessee was highlighted. The Tribunal ordered the deletion of the penalty, emphasizing the necessity of a clear satisfaction by the AO for levying penalties.
4. The assessee also disputed the peak balance and disallowance of expenses, arguing against the justification for penalty. The Departmental Representative supported the penalty, citing relevant case laws. The Tribunal considered the arguments and ordered the deletion of the penalty, emphasizing the inapplicability of penalties on estimated income.
5. In another assessment, similar issues arose, and the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was challenged. The Tribunal set aside the penalty, directing the AO to delete it due to the lack of satisfaction recorded by the AO. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the similarity of circumstances to the previous case and the inapplicability of penalties on estimated income.
This detailed analysis covers the various issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the arguments presented and the Tribunal's decisions in each case.
-
2006 (11) TMI 259
Issues involved: The judgment involves the following issues: 1. Whether there was a relationship of employer and employee between M/s Allen Career Institute and the assessee, and if the receipt from the institute should be treated as professional receipts instead of salary. 2. Whether the claim of Rs. 3,18,328 under section 37(1) as professional expenditure should be allowed.
Issue 1: The dispute revolved around whether the assessee was an employee or a professional with M/s Allen Career Institute. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted the assessee's prior employment at Central Academy School and private tuition activities before joining the institute. The AO concluded that the assessee wrongly claimed income as professional instead of salary. However, the CIT(A) allowed the claim, considering the terms of the contract between the assessee and the institute. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the nature of payment and tax deductions indicated an employer-employee relationship. The Authorised Representative defended the CIT(A)'s decision, citing the nature of payment, professional registration, and past assessments as a professional. After evaluating the arguments, the Tribunal found in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the terms of the agreement, the nature of services provided, and the absence of typical employee benefits, concluding that the receipt was professional income.
Issue 2: The second issue pertained to the claim of Rs. 3,18,328 under section 37(1) as professional expenditure. The CIT(A) had allowed this claim based on the assessee's professional income. The Tribunal acknowledged the validity of the claim in principle but directed the AO to verify the correctness of the claimed expenditure amount. The Tribunal partially allowed this ground, subject to the AO's verification of the expenditure's accuracy based on the available record. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed.
Separate Judgment: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
-
2006 (11) TMI 255
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of claim under section 32A for Rs. 35,96,015.
2. Disallowance of entertainment expenditure pertaining to employees under section 37(2A).
3. Non-adjudication of disallowance of liabilities for superannuation fund and gratuity.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Rejection of Claim under Section 32A for Rs. 35,96,015
The primary issue revolved around the rejection of the assessee's claim for investment allowance under section 32A due to fluctuations in foreign exchange rates. The assessee claimed an investment allowance of Rs. 38,04,143 on plant and machinery investments, which included an amount arising from foreign exchange fluctuations. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, and the CIT(A) partially allowed it, granting relief of Rs. 2,08,128 for fresh machinery purchases but disallowing Rs. 35,96,015 related to foreign exchange fluctuations.
The Tribunal, after considering various precedents, held that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance on the enhanced cost of assets due to foreign exchange fluctuations. Key decisions cited included CIT v. Chengalvarayan Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., CIT v. Century Enka Ltd., and the Full Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that the investment allowance had not been specifically excluded from the purview of section 43A, and thus, the claim was admissible. Consequently, the Tribunal overturned the CIT(A)'s decision and allowed the claim for Rs. 35,96,015.
However, there was a difference of opinion between the Accountant Member and the Judicial Member. The Accountant Member allowed the claim based on the established precedents, while the Judicial Member suggested a remand to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, citing the need for a detailed examination of the facts and conditions under section 32A. The Third Member (President) resolved this by agreeing with the Accountant Member, stating that the conditions for claiming the allowance were satisfied and there was no need for a remand.
Issue 2: Disallowance of Entertainment Expenditure
The second issue involved the disallowance of entertainment expenditure claimed by the assessee. The assessee argued that a portion of the entertainment expenses pertained to employees and should not be disallowed under section 37(2A). The Assessing Officer disallowed the entire claim, but the CIT(A) allowed a partial deduction of Rs. 8,750.
The Tribunal noted that in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 1990-91, a deduction of 20% was allowed for employee participation in entertainment expenses. Respecting this precedent, the Tribunal allowed the claim partly, restricting the deduction to 20% of the total entertainment expenses.
Issue 3: Non-Adjudication of Liabilities for Superannuation Fund and Gratuity
The third issue was related to the non-adjudication by the CIT(A) on the ground concerning the disallowance of liabilities for the superannuation fund and gratuity amounting to Rs. 4,97,312 and Rs. 1,62,548, respectively.
The Tribunal restored this issue to the CIT(A) for disposal in accordance with the law, ensuring that the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on the claim under section 32A for Rs. 35,96,015, following the Accountant Member's view and established judicial precedents. The entertainment expenditure claim was partly allowed, restricting the deduction to 20%. The issue regarding the disallowance of liabilities for the superannuation fund and gratuity was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
-
2006 (11) TMI 253
Powers Of Appellate Tribunal u/s 255 - claiming refund after adjustment of pre-paid taxes - whether after granting of refund u/s 143(1)(a)(ii), notice u/s 143(2) could be issued or not? - rejection of the books of account u/s 145(2) - Net profit rate - HELD THAT:- The powers of the Hon'ble President of ITAT are absolute discretion of the Hon'ble President to constitute a Special Bench for disposal of any particular case. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ITAT also held that the functions entrusted under sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 255 to the President of the Appellate Tribunal are obviously administrative function. They have nothing to do with exercise of any judicial powers. It was further held that it is obvious that the President in this connection may even act suo motu if it is brought to his notice that any important point is pending for decision in the matter which requires to be decided by a larger Bench. If the President acting on such information and in bona fide exercise of his powers constitutes a larger Bench or a Special Bench for deciding a matter it cannot be said that he Acts ultra vires his functions entrusted to him by the Legislature u/s 255(1) read with section 255(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Notice u/s 143 - We are of the view that the principle laid down by Hon'ble Jurisdictional M.P. High Court in the case of Kamal Textiles [1990 (12) TMI 56 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] would squarely apply to the case, where refund is granted by the Assessing Officer after processing of the return u/s 143(1)(a)(ii). Accordingly, the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Apogee International [1996 (3) TMI 119 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Electricity Board[2002 (10) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT], also fortify our opinion on the said legal proposition.
Considering above legal proposition, we may revert back to the first decision of the ITAT, Indore Bench in the case of Arihant Builders, Developers & Investors (P.) Ltd., Indore, in IT Appeal of 1993 for assessment year 1991-92, in which the Tribunal decided the referred question in favour of the assessee, which is heavily relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee. The D.B. of ITAT, Indore Bench in IT Appeal of 1993 decided the issue in favour of the assessee on the premise that processing u/s 143(1)(a) is an assessment and, therefore, once refund is granted, no fresh assessment proceedings could begin by issue of notice u/s143(2). The same contentions were raised before the Tribunal on behalf of the assessee.
Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment has become complete in that case and nothing more was needed to be complete the assessment. The ld. counsel for the assessee, therefore, demolished his own case by contending now that the processing of the return u/s 143(1)(a) is not an assessment, as is also held in his own argued case of Om Prakash Bagria [2006 (4) TMI 95 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT]. As per the decision in the case of Om Prakash Bagria there is a distinction between processing of the return u/s 143(1)(a) and section 143(2). The case laws relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee would not support his contention at all.
Hence, we hold that the Assessing Officer was perfectly justified and have jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 143(2), even after refund was granted to the assessee u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. This issue is, therefore, decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
Rejection of the books - failure to prove the genuineness of payments - labour charges and cartage expenses - HELD THAT:- Considering the finding of the authorities below, we do not find any merit in the case of the assessee with regard to the rejection of the books of account with the aid of section 145(2) of the Act. We confirm the orders of the authorities below to that extent.
Net profit rate - HELD THAT:- The assessee is also civil contractor engaged in construction work taken on contract and the gross receipt of the assessee are below Rs. 40 lakhs. Therefore, in our considered view, the net profit rate of 12.5 per cent applied by the authorities below in the case of the assessee is excessive and exorbitant. We, accordingly, modify the application of net profit rate from 12.5 per cent to 8 per cent on the gross receipt shown by the assessee. The Assessing Officer shall work out the profit accordingly.
As a result, this ground of appeal of the assessee is in IT Appeal is partly allowed.
Accordingly, we answer the question referred to the Special Bench in favour of the Revenue.
............
|
9911796707
