|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 421 to 440 of 694 Records
-
2006 (7) TMI 303
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the correct value of assets taken over by the assessee for claiming depreciation.
2. Deductibility of 100% depreciation on air pollution equipment.
3. Deductibility of contributions towards PF and family pension fund.
4. Disallowance of guest-house expenses.
5. Ad hoc disallowance of various expenses.
6. Disallowance of increased liability of technical know-how fees due to foreign exchange fluctuation.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Determination of the correct value of assets taken over by the assessee for claiming depreciation:
The appeals arose from the orders passed by the CIT(A)-I, Aurangabad, which were based on assessments made under section 143(3). The assessee company, a joint venture between Goodyear, USA, and Ceat India groups, purchased the Waluj undertaking from Ceat Ltd. The purchase consideration was tentatively fixed at Rs. 5.15 crores but later valued at Rs. 41.84 crores by M/s A.F. Ferguson & Co. The AO questioned the valuation, particularly the significant increase in the value of certain assets like buildings, furniture, and machinery, and concluded that the transaction aimed to claim higher depreciation. The AO restricted the depreciation claim based on the WDV of the assets in Ceat Ltd.'s hands.
Upon appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting the assessee's failure to substantiate the valuation method. The Tribunal held that the transaction was transparent and not a tax avoidance device, thus not falling under Explanation 3 to section 43(1). However, it adjusted the value of land to Rs. 120.80 lakhs based on the conveyance deed, reducing the value of plant and machinery accordingly. The AO was directed to compute depreciation on this basis.
2. Deductibility of 100% depreciation on air pollution equipment:
The AO allowed 50% depreciation on air pollution equipment, reasoning that it was used for less than 180 days. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, and the Tribunal agreed, dismissing the assessee's claim for 100% depreciation.
3. Deductibility of contributions towards PF and family pension fund:
The AO disallowed Rs. 6,68,979 of the claimed miscellaneous expenses, stating that the PF and superannuation trusts were not recognized. The CIT(A) provided partial relief of Rs. 1,51,334 based on the CIT's approval. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination of the facts and appropriate relief.
4. Disallowance of guest-house expenses:
The assessee did not argue this ground due to the Supreme Court's decision in Britannia Industries Ltd. vs. CIT. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed this ground.
5. Ad hoc disallowance of various expenses:
The AO made an ad hoc disallowance of Rs. 10 lakhs, which the CIT(A) upheld, noting the assessee's agreement to the disallowance. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after hearing the assessee.
6. Disallowance of increased liability of technical know-how fees due to foreign exchange fluctuation:
The CIT(A) refused to admit a fresh ground regarding the disallowance of Rs. 6,98,889. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to consider the admissibility of this ground and decide on the merits after hearing the assessee.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal provided partial relief to the assessee by adjusting the value of land and directing a fresh examination of certain disallowances by the CIT(A). The appeals for subsequent years were consequential, depending on the depreciation determined for the initial year. The Tribunal's decisions aimed to ensure a fair and accurate computation of depreciation and other deductions based on substantiated evidence.
-
2006 (7) TMI 302
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the CIT under section 263.
2. Assessment of undisclosed income based on diary entries.
3. Validity of the revisionary order passed by the CIT.
4. Examination and verification of entries in the diaries.
5. Hypothetical vs. actual financial transactions.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the CIT under section 263:
The assessee argued that the CIT (Central), Nagpur had no jurisdiction to pass the order under section 263 as the assessment order had merged with the order of the CIT(A). However, this ground was not pressed before the Tribunal as the revisionary order was passed prior to the appellate order. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in this ground.
2. Assessment of undisclosed income based on diary entries:
The CIT added Rs. 1 crore to the assessed undisclosed income of the appellant based on an entry in the seized diary, which was not considered by the Assessing Officer during the block assessment. The CIT concluded that the entry was not hypothetical but represented a real transaction of placing an amount of Rs. 50 lakh as a deposit, doubling to Rs. 1 crore over five years. The assessee contended that the entry was hypothetical and no actual financial transaction took place.
3. Validity of the revisionary order passed by the CIT:
The Tribunal examined whether the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. It was found that the Assessing Officer had made due enquiries and considered the explanations provided by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the CIT's order was based on the same facts without any further enquiry, indicating it was a mere change of opinion rather than an error in the original assessment.
4. Examination and verification of entries in the diaries:
The Tribunal noted that the diaries were found and seized during the search, and the entries were examined both in the course of search and assessment proceedings. The assessee consistently maintained that the impugned entry was hypothetical. The Tribunal found that the CIT did not conduct any further enquiry to substantiate the addition of Rs. 1 crore, which was based on the same evidence already considered by the Assessing Officer.
5. Hypothetical vs. actual financial transactions:
The Tribunal considered the assessee's explanation that the entry was a hypothetical illustration of money doubling over a period of five years. The Tribunal found no evidence of actual financial transactions corresponding to the impugned entry. The CIT(A) also concluded that the entry did not pertain to the assessee but to other parties involved in the transactions recorded in the diaries.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue as contemplated under section 263 of the Act. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 1 crore made by the CIT in his revisionary order was deleted. Both appeals of the assessees were allowed, and the Tribunal found that the CIT's order was based on a mere change of opinion without any further substantive evidence or enquiry.
-
2006 (7) TMI 299
Issues Involved:
1. Claim of depreciation on residential buildings provided to staff.
2. Deduction on account of leave encashment.
3. Disallowance of payment of provident fund and ESIC.
4. Ad hoc disallowance of miscellaneous expenses.
5. Deduction under section 80HHC of the IT Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Claim of Depreciation on Residential Buildings Provided to Staff:
The appeals pertain to the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99, where the assessee claimed depreciation on residential buildings provided to staff. The amounts were Rs. 1,95,926 and Rs. 1,86,130 respectively. The Revenue authorities invoked the provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act, 1961 read with section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, arguing that the cost of construction was met by employees, thus the actual cost to the assessee was "nil" and no depreciation was allowable. The CIT(A) justified the AO's action, citing a registered agreement with employees and the applicability of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, indicating that the property was transferred to employees.
The Tribunal examined the facts, including the Government of Maharashtra's condition under the ULC Act, the construction phases, the loan from HDFC, and the agreement with employees. It was noted that the transfer of flats occurred in the assessment year 2003-04, and short-term capital gain was declared then. Previous proceedings under section 263 and the allowance of depreciation in earlier years were also considered. The Tribunal concluded that the flats were not legally transferred during the years under consideration, thus the assessee was entitled to depreciation. The findings of the authorities below were reversed.
2. Deduction on Account of Leave Encashment:
For the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99, the assessee claimed deduction for leave encashment. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Bharat Earth Movers Ltd., which held that provision for leave encashment is deductible. The AO was directed to recompute the claim, allowing the deduction for the provision made for incremental liability under the leave encashment scheme.
3. Disallowance of Payment of Provident Fund and ESIC:
The disallowance of provident fund and ESIC payments was contested. The Tribunal followed the Pune Bench decision in Indian Card Clothing Co. Ltd., outlining three points: section 43B applies only to employer's contribution, deductions for employer's contribution are allowed if paid before the due date of filing the return, and deductions for employees' contribution are allowed if paid within the grace period. The AO was directed to allow the claim if payments met these conditions.
4. Ad Hoc Disallowance of Miscellaneous Expenses:
The assessee did not press the ground regarding the ad hoc disallowance of Rs. 10,000 out of miscellaneous expenses for the assessment year 1997-98. Consequently, this ground was dismissed.
5. Deduction Under Section 80HHC of the IT Act:
The assessee claimed deduction under section 80HHC, which was contested by the authorities on the grounds that sales-tax and excise should be included in the turnover calculation. The Tribunal referred to the Bombay High Court's decision in Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd., which ruled in favor of the assessee, excluding sales-tax and excise from the turnover for deduction purposes.
Conclusion:
Both appeals were partly allowed, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the assessee on the issues of depreciation, leave encashment, and section 80HHC deductions, while the ad hoc disallowance of miscellaneous expenses was dismissed and the provident fund and ESIC issue was remanded for reconsideration based on specified conditions.
-
2006 (7) TMI 298
Issues Involved:
1. Assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act.
2. Assessee's claim for depreciation of Rs. 6,26,912.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
Ground No. 1:
The learned Authorized Representative did not press this ground, and therefore it was rejected.
Ground No. 2:
This ground relates to the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act.
Background and Facts:
The assessee company, incorporated on 21st Jan 1981, was manufacturing mechanical and power steering gears. The mechanical steering gears are indigenous products, while the power steering gears have about 50-60% imported components. The company decided to establish a new undertaking to manufacture exclusively power steering gears-8043 (302 Type). The construction of a new shed for the new unit commenced in April 1994, and nine machines costing about Rs. 90 lacs were installed during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1995-96. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80-IA in the return filed for the assessment year 1995-96.
Assessment and Appeals:
The AO's initial assessment order for the assessment year 1995-96 made a cryptic observation regarding the new industrial undertaking. The AO's detailed examination in the assessment year 1996-97 led to the disallowance of the claim under Section 80-IA, stating that no new unit came into existence before 31st March 1995, and the new unit was formed as a result of splitting up and reconstruction of the old unit. The CIT set aside the assessment order for the assessment year 1995-96, directing the AO to re-examine the issue. The AO's consequential assessment order for the assessment year 1995-96 was confirmed by the CIT(A).
Legal Position and Analysis:
Section 80-IA was inserted by the Finance Act, 1991, and subsequently amended. The deduction under Section 80-IA is available to an assessee whose gross total income includes any profits or gains derived from an industrial undertaking that fulfills the conditions laid down in sub-section (2) of the section. The primary purpose of Section 80-IA is to grant relief to a new industrial undertaking. The burden lies upon the assessee to produce cogent material in support of the claim.
Relevant Questions for Consideration:
1. Whether the nine machines installed before 31st March 1995 brought into existence an integrated independent unit capable of producing the product-8034 (Type 302)?
2. Whether the new machinery installed and the old machinery transferred in the subsequent year were needed to make the unit integrated and independent?
3. Whether the product-8034 (Type 302) was also being manufactured in the old unit during the relevant period?
4. Whether the product-8034 (Type 302) was shown to have been manufactured simultaneously in the old unit and the new unit independently?
5. Whether there is any evidence from the relevant contemporaneous production records to prove that the 890 units of the product-8034 (Type 302) were actually manufactured in the new unit independently?
Decision:
The case for the assessment year 1995-96 is remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to re-examine the matter in light of the guidelines provided and to decide the issue afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the AO.
Ground No. 3:
This ground relates to the assessee's claim for depreciation of Rs. 6,26,912. The AO and the CIT(A) passed cryptic orders while rejecting the claim. The AO merely stated that it was not possible that the machinery was put to use on the same day it was installed on 31st March 1995. The CIT(A) is directed to de novo examine this issue after bringing the relevant material on record and to pass a fresh speaking order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 1995-96 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2006 (7) TMI 295
Issues Involved:
1. Guest House Expenses
2. Disallowance of Presentation Articles Expenditure
3. Addition of Excess Realization on Sale of Levy Sugar and Interest Thereon
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Guest House Expenses:
The first issue concerns the addition of Rs. 3,07,072 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of expenditure on food and beverages, treating it as expenditure on maintenance of a guest house. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirmed this addition. However, this ground is covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of the ITAT Pune in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 1996-97. Following this precedent, the Tribunal allowed this ground in favor of the assessee.
2. Disallowance of Presentation Articles Expenditure:
The second issue pertains to the disallowance of Rs. 46,825 made under Rule 6B, which the CIT(A) held as expenditure in the nature of advertisement. The Tribunal found that this ground is covered in favor of the assessee by the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Allana Sons (P.) Ltd. [1995] 216 ITR 690. Respectfully following this precedent, the Tribunal allowed this ground in favor of the assessee.
3. Addition of Excess Realization on Sale of Levy Sugar and Interest Thereon:
The third issue involves the addition of Rs. 3,61,78,204 on account of excess realization on the sale of levy sugar and interest thereon relating to earlier years. The assessee had collected excess levy sugar price as per an interim order of the Karnataka High Court for the sugar seasons 1974-75 to 1978-79. This amount, along with the interest payable thereon, was shown as a liability in the balance sheet. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the Supreme Court settled the matter on 22-9-1993, and the Government of India issued notifications on 22-2-1995, re-fixing the price for the levy of sugar. Consequently, the AO added Rs. 3,61,78,204 as income for the assessment year 1995-96, which was upheld by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal examined the legal position regarding the accrual of income, emphasizing that under the mercantile system of accounting, taxability depends on the date when the amount becomes due, not its receipt. The Tribunal referred to various legal precedents, including CIT v. Shri Goverdhan Ltd. [1968] 69 ITR 675 (SC) and Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 835, to substantiate that income accrues when the right to receive it becomes vested in the assessee.
In this case, the Tribunal concluded that the excess levy sugar price, finally determined by the notifications issued on 22-2-1995 in compliance with the Supreme Court judgment, accrued as income during the accounting year ending 31-3-1995 and was taxable in the assessment year 1995-96. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's argument that the right to the excess levy sugar price was inchoate and concluded that there was a cessation of liability due to the notification, making the impugned sums taxable in the assessment year 1995-96. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected this ground.
Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, with the Tribunal granting relief on the issues of guest house expenses and presentation articles expenditure, but upholding the addition of excess realization on the sale of levy sugar and interest thereon.
-
2006 (7) TMI 293
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition by the Commissioner of Gift-tax (CGT) regarding Stridhan settlement.
2. Determination of whether the property transfer to Smt. D. Janaki attracts Gift-tax.
3. Validity and implications of family settlement and Stridhan settlement.
4. Applicability of the Hindu Succession (Tamilnadu Amendment) Act, 1989.
5. Assessment of capital gains in relation to the family settlement and Stridhan settlement.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Deletion of Addition by the Commissioner of Gift-tax (CGT) Regarding Stridhan Settlement:
The appeals by the Revenue contested the deletion of addition by the CGT(A), who held that the Stridhan settlement dated 8-11-1989 conferred property on Smt. D. Janaki and did not attract Gift-tax under the Gift-tax Act. The CGT(A) concluded that the property bequeathed to Smt. D. Janaki via family settlement and Stridhan settlement was not a gift, thus allowing the assessees' claim.
2. Determination of Whether the Property Transfer to Smt. D. Janaki Attracts Gift-tax:
The Revenue argued that the property given to Smt. D. Janaki amounted to a gift since she had no prior interest in the property before the family settlement deed. The Assessing Officer proposed to treat the transfer as a gift and assess it to tax. However, the CGT(A) and the Tribunal found that the property transfer was part of a family settlement and Stridhan agreement, which did not constitute a gift under the Gift-tax Act. The Tribunal upheld that the property transfer was in accordance with the amended provisions of the Hindu Succession (Tamilnadu Amendment) Act, 1989, which conferred coparcenary rights to daughters.
3. Validity and Implications of Family Settlement and Stridhan Settlement:
The family settlement deed dated 4-8-1988 aimed to avoid disputes by reallocating family properties among members. The Tribunal referenced several Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that family arrangements are intended to preserve family peace and security, and are valid even if they do not involve legal claims. The family arrangement was considered bona fide, voluntary, and aimed at maintaining harmony, thus not attracting Gift-tax.
4. Applicability of the Hindu Succession (Tamilnadu Amendment) Act, 1989:
The Tribunal examined the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, by the Hindu Succession (Tamilnadu Amendment) Act, 1989, which conferred coparcenary rights to daughters, allowing them to claim partition and share in the joint family property. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's interpretation of similar amendments in other states, affirming that daughters have equal rights as sons in the joint family property. The Tribunal concluded that the property transfer to Smt. D. Janaki was in line with the amended Act, and thus, did not attract Gift-tax.
5. Assessment of Capital Gains in Relation to the Family Settlement and Stridhan Settlement:
The Tribunal addressed whether the property transfer to Smt. D. Janaki would attract capital gains tax. It was noted that the family settlement aimed to avoid disputes and reallocated properties among family members. The Tribunal referenced case law indicating that family arrangements do not amount to a transfer of title and thus do not attract capital gains tax. The Tribunal upheld that the property divested to Smt. D. Janaki was part of a bona fide family arrangement and Stridhan settlement, not attracting capital gains tax.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming that the property transfer to Smt. D. Janaki was part of a valid family settlement and Stridhan settlement, in accordance with the Hindu Succession (Tamilnadu Amendment) Act, 1989. The transfer did not constitute a gift under the Gift-tax Act and did not attract capital gains tax, thus upholding the CGT(A)'s decision.
-
2006 (7) TMI 291
Unabsorbed Depreciation - whether it is possible to set off the brought forward depreciation loss against capital gains - HELD THAT:- In the present case before us the assessment year 1999-2000, as mentioned earlier, and the depreciation allowance is for the assessment year 1997-98 which the assessee is claiming for set off against the income for the present assessment year. As explained in the earlier paragraph in the table giving comparative position before the amendment and after the amendment it is absolutely clear that it is only section 32(2)(iii) of the Act, that is operational in the case of the assessee. On that basis all that the assessee could claim is for carry forward of the unabsorbed depreciation for six more successive assessment years to be adjusted against the income from profits and gains from the same business from which the depreciation claim arose and the assessee would be entitled to carry this act for the next six assessment years.
Further, the clear condition that is laid down in this section is that in the assessment year in which the assessee is claiming the set off of the unabsorbed depreciation, the assessee must be carrying on that business and the income from that business must exist. To put it in other words, if the business from which the depreciation claim arose is not carried out in any of the assessment years, the assessee would not be entitled to the set off. Thus, we decide the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue.
The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
-
2006 (7) TMI 289
Issues:
- Interpretation of deduction under s. 80-IA of the IT Act, 1961 for a manufacturer of detergent cakes.
Analysis:
1. Issue of Deduction under s. 80-IA:
- The issue revolved around whether the deduction claimed by the assessee company under s. 80-IA of the IT Act, 1961 was allowable, specifically in relation to the distinction between "soaps" and "detergents."
- The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the deduction, arguing that the assessee did not qualify as a small-scale industry and that "soaps" fell under Entry No. 4 of Schedule XI to the IT Act.
- The CIT(A) distinguished between "soaps" and "detergents" based on the Central Excise Tariff of India, 2001-02, as well as decisions from the Central Excise Tribunal and the Allahabad High Court.
- The CIT(A) concluded that the properties and usage of soap and detergent are different, with soap primarily used for the body and detergent for clothes, thus allowing the deduction under s. 80-IA.
- The Revenue, in its appeal, argued that in common parlance, "soaps" include "detergents," and the items manufactured by the assessee fell under Entry No. 4 of Schedule XI.
- The Special Bench of CEGAT clarified that soaps and detergents are distinct commodities with different manufacturing processes and chemical compositions.
- Applying the principle of "ejusdem generis," the Tribunal determined that "detergents" should not be included under the category of items like toothpaste, dental cream, tooth powder, and soap, allowing the assessee's deduction under s. 80-IA.
2. Legal Interpretation and Precedents:
- The Tribunal referred to legal definitions and precedents to establish the differentiation between "soap" and "detergent," emphasizing their distinct chemical compositions and manufacturing processes.
- The principle of "ejusdem generis" was applied to restrict the meaning of general words to things of the same kind as those specifically enumerated, ensuring that the term "soap" in the context of the statute aligned with items applied to the human body, excluding detergents.
3. Conclusion:
- The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under s. 80-IA based on the clear distinction between soaps and detergents, as supported by legal definitions, precedents, and the application of the principle of "ejusdem generis."
-
2006 (7) TMI 288
Right to partition - Refusal to recognize the partition of HUF under section 171 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 - deduction of residential house allowable under section 54.
Right to partition - Refusal to recognize the partition of HUF under section 171 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, Sri P.C. Ramakrishna, H.U.F. apart from P.C. Ramakrishna, Karta, two daughters viz., Ms. Samyuktha Ramakrishna and Ms. Saranya Ramakrishna along with his wife, Smt. Hymavathi Ramakrishna are the members of H.U.F. After the amendment of Hindu Succession (T.N. Amendment) Act, 1989 vide clauses (i) and (ii), the daughter in H.U.F. shall by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manners as the son and have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son, inclusive of the right to claim by survivorship and shall be subject to liabilities and disabilities in respect thereto as the son. She is entitled to partition of a Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property and in such partition, Hindu Family coparcenary property shall be so divided to a daughter so as to allot the same share as is allottable to a son - The amendment brought out w.e.f. 25th March, 1989 has removed the distinction as regards to a son or a daughter in respect thereto coparcenary property of Joint Hindu family as governed by Mitakshara law and daughters are clearly treated as coparceners. In the present case, there are two daughters to the Karta. Hence, there are three coparceners in the Joint Hindu Family and the daughters have been allotted a sum of Rs. 12,50,000 i.e. Ms. Samyuktha Ramakrishna & Ms. Saranya Ramakrishna each - there are no infirmity in the partition of the Joint Hindu Family which is in accordance with the Hindu Succession (T.N. Amendment) Act, 1989. In view of this, the partition is as per the amended provisions of Hindu Succession (T.N. Amendment) Act, 1989. Hence, there is no reason to refuse Registration to family partition of Joint Hindu Family property. Accordingly, the partition of H.U.F. is recognized under section 171 of the Act and the Assessing Officer is directed to pass a consequential order recognizing the partition of the H.U.F. In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed.
Whether a residential house should be treated as allowable under section 54 or whether more than one residential house can be considered as allowable under section 54 of the Act? - HELD THAT:- A bare reading of section 54 of the Act, clearly infers that there is no bar to claim deduction for more than one residential house and if the assessee is holding a residential house and on sale of such property, the assessee requires another property, the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 54 of the Act. If the assessee, in the same year sell a residential house and acquires a house property out of such transaction, still the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 54 of the Act. There is no bar in acquiring more than one house/residential house under section 54 unlike under section 54F of the Act - It can easily be held that if the assessee purchases two houses to meet his needs out of the sale proceeds of one residential house, he cannot be denied exemption under section 54 of the Act. What is to be examined is whether the other conditions as specified in section 54 are satisfied at the time of investment in each of the property or not.
In the present case, it is clear that these two flats are acquired simultaneously under the terms of agreement entered into on 29th October, 1993 and on the same date the possession of these flats were given in the same year, simultaneously - Under section 54 of the Income-tax Act, capital gains arising on the transfer of a house property which in the two years immediately preceding the date of its transfer was used by the assessee or a parent of his for self-residence is exempted from income-tax if the assessee, within a period of one year before or after that date, purchases or within a period of two years after the date of such transfer constructs a house property for the purpose of his own residence. The exemption of capital gains is restricted to the amount of such capital gain utilized for the purchase or construction of the new house property.
Both the flats are acquired by the assessee, simultaneously and hence the conditions for acquiring the residential house within the time specified under section 54 of the Act are complied with. There is no bar in acquiring more than one residential houses to claim deduction under section 54 of the Act unlike section 54F of the Act. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 54 of the Act in respect of the investment made in both the flats simultaneously for computation of capital gains.
The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the assessee's appeal is allowed.
-
2006 (7) TMI 283
Allowability of 10A exemption - letter issued by STPI on 15th April, 1999 covers the assessment year period under consideration or not - Entitlement of section 10A exemption to the erstwhile firm.
Allowability of 10A exemption - main reason for which the exemption was denied by the lower authorities was that the assessee was not approved by STPI for the assessment year. under consideration and it was approved only on 15th Feb., 1999 which falls under the asst. yr. 2000-01 - HELD THAT:- There is force in the contention of the assessee that the assessee is not a new unit and it was carrying on the business which entitles deduction under s. 10A vide STPI recognition dt. 6th Oct., 1998 which was in the name of M/s Kumaran Software and the firm was re-named as Kumaran Systems on 20th Oct., 1998 which was converted into a private limited company in the name and style of Kumaran Systems (P) Ltd., due to operation of law as per Part IX of Companies Act, 1956 and all the properties and liabilities of the firm were vested with the limited company. There was a mere change of name and the composition in the ownership of the undertaking and the business of the undertaking have not changed as the same partners have become directors of the company. The business activities of the newly constituted company remains the same. The business of the assessee was not formed by splitting of the old business or reconstruction. The undertaking of the assessee company remained the same.
Whether the letter issued by STPI on 15th April, 1999 covers the assessment year period under consideration? - HELD THAT:- The letter clearly states that all the approval issued by their office like permission, IE Code, Green Card etc. stand valid under new name. Thus, it means that the authorities of STPI substituted the name of Kumaran Software with Kumaran Systems (P) Ltd. - As held in the case of Valli Patabhirama Rao & Anr. vs. Sr. Ramanuja Ginning & Rice Factory (P) Ltd. & Ors. [.....................................], there shall be statutory vesting of all the properties of the previous firm in the newly incorporated company without any need for separate conveyance. In view of this, if the firm, Kumaran Software/Kumaran Systems (P) Ltd., is entitled for 10A exemption, the assessee is also entitled for this exemption, because the assessee company has stepped into the shoes of Kumaran Systems (P) Ltd.
Entitlement of section 10A exemption to the erstwhile firm - HELD THAT:- The erstwhile firm is entitled for s. 10A exemption for ten consecutive assessment years beginning from the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the industrial undertaking begins to manufacture articles or things. The period of ten years commences from the financial year relevant to the assessment year in which the undertaking begins to manufacture or produce articles or things - In the instant case, the firm started to manufacture in the asst. yr. 1999-2000. Since the registration was granted by STPI on 6th Oct., 1998, the assessee is entitled for exemption under s. 10A from the asst. yr. 1999-2000 for a period of ten consecutive assessment years. The question of splitting up or reconstitution does not arise as the authorities below, themselves have admitted that it is not a new business formed by splitting up or reconstitution of existing business and the assessee is entitled for deduction for the asst. yr. 2000-01. When the lower authorities have admitted that this undertaking was not formed by splitting up or reconstitution, there are no reason for denial of the exemption for the asst. yr. 1999-2000 - the assessee is entitled for exemption under s. 10A of the IT Act though the STPI letter was issue on 15th April, 1999.
Appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2006 (7) TMI 282
Issues Involved:
1. Whether interest earned from fixed deposits with the bank is connected or interlinked with carrying on the assessee's business and, therefore, is eligible for deduction under s. 80HHC from the business profits after excluding 90 per cent under Expln. (baa) to s. 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961.
2. Whether the receipts on account of interest, commission, brokerage, rent, charges, or any other receipt of a similar nature are to be excluded net or gross from such profits for the purpose of computation of deduction under Expln. (baa) to s. 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Interest Earned from Fixed Deposits and its Connection to Business
The primary issue was whether the interest earned from fixed deposits, which were a precondition for obtaining loans, should be considered as business income and thus eligible for deduction under s. 80HHC. The learned counsel for the assessee argued that the interest earned on such deposits should be netted off against the interest paid to the bank, citing the Supreme Court's decisions in CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. and Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., which supported netting off interest in cases where the income was inextricably linked to business expenses. The jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. A.S. Nizar Ahmed & Co. was also cited, which held that deposits made as a precondition for credit facilities were inextricably linked to business and thus should be considered as business income.
However, the Department argued that the interest income should be excluded from business profits as per cl. (baa) to Explanation to s. 80HHC. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. V. Chinnapandi and K.S. Subbiah Pillai & Co. (India) (P) Ltd. vs. CIT supported this view, stating that 90 per cent of such receipts should be excluded from business profits without any further deductions.
Issue 2: Gross vs. Net Exclusion of Receipts
The second issue was whether the exclusion of receipts like interest, commission, brokerage, rent, charges, etc., should be on a gross or net basis. The learned counsel for the assessee argued that only the net income (after deducting related expenses) should be excluded, citing the Special Bench decision in Lalsons Enterprises vs. Dy. CIT and the principle of mutuality and set-off recognized in commercial law.
The Department, however, contended that as per cl. (baa) to Explanation to s. 80HHC, 90 per cent of the gross receipts should be excluded from business profits. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. V. Chinnapandi and K.S. Subbiah Pillai & Co. (India) (P) Ltd. vs. CIT supported this interpretation, emphasizing that the legislature intended to exclude gross receipts to simplify the calculation of export profits.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that, according to cl. (baa) to Explanation to s. 80HHC, 90 per cent of the gross receipts in the nature of interest, commission, brokerage, rent, charges, etc., should be excluded from the business profits for the purpose of computing the deduction under s. 80HHC. The Tribunal also clarified that no further deductions related to these receipts are permissible, aligning with the jurisdictional High Court's decisions.
Specific Appeals:
- ITA Nos. 856/2000 and 1290/2001: The appeals by the Revenue were allowed, confirming that 90 per cent of the gross interest should be excluded.
- ITA Nos. 1147/2001, 274/2003, 2344, 2345/2003, and 35/2003: These appeals were set aside to the AO to determine whether the interest income was business income or income from other sources, with appropriate exclusions to be made based on this determination.
Result:
The appeals were disposed of by confirming the exclusion of 90 per cent of gross receipts from business profits as per cl. (baa) to Explanation to s. 80HHC, and specific appeals were remanded to the AO for further determination.
-
2006 (7) TMI 277
Issues: Cross-appeals against CIT(A) order for asst. yr. 2001-02; Admissibility of additional ground challenging jurisdiction under s. 147/148; Validity of notice issued to non-existing firm; Jurisdictional error in issuing notice to individual who already filed return; Quashing assessment order based on invalid notice.
In this case, cross-appeals were filed against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2001-02. The assessee filed an additional ground challenging the jurisdiction under sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, contending that the AO erred in usurping jurisdiction based on a non-existent reason of non-filing of return, as the return was already filed under section 139. The ITAT allowed the admissibility of this ground as it was a legal issue not requiring further investigation of facts. The Tribunal decided to address this legal ground before delving into the merits of the case.
The facts revealed that a notice under sections 147/148 was issued to a firm that was no longer in existence, despite the individual assessee having already filed the return for the relevant year. The Tribunal observed that the notice issued to the firm was invalid, as the individual had fulfilled the filing requirements. The Tribunal found that the notice was based on a ground not available to the AO and therefore, the subsequent proceedings were null and void. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment order based on the invalid notice had to be quashed. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the legal additional ground raised by the assessee and dismissed the appeal on merits as infructuous.
Ultimately, the ITAT quashed the assessment order and allowed the appeal of the assessee on legal grounds, while dismissing the Department's appeal. The decision emphasized the importance of jurisdictional correctness in issuing notices and highlighted the necessity to adhere to legal procedures to maintain the validity of assessment orders.
-
2006 (7) TMI 276
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of 1/6th of expenses claimed under petrol, telephone, and car depreciation.
2. Non-granting of deduction under section 80-IA on income surrendered during a survey.
3. Charging of interest under section 234B.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Disallowance of 1/6th of Expenses Claimed:
The Assessing Officer disallowed 1/6th of the expenses claimed under petrol, telephone, and depreciation on the car due to personal use by the proprietor. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The appellant argued that the disallowance was excessive and that depreciation should not be disallowed for personal use. However, the tribunal found that section 38(2) mandates that if an asset is not exclusively used for business purposes, deductions, including depreciation, must be proportionate. Therefore, the argument to exclude depreciation was rejected. However, the tribunal reduced the disallowance from 1/6th to 1/8th, considering it more just and fair.
2. Non-granting of Deduction under Section 80-IA:
The main ground of appeal was the non-granting of deduction under section 80-IA for income surrendered during a survey. The assessee, engaged in manufacturing jaljeera and Ayurvedic medicines, surrendered Rs. 15.01 lakhs found in excess cash during a survey and claimed it as eligible for deduction under section 80-IA. The Assessing Officer taxed this amount under 'Income from other sources' and denied the deduction. The tribunal noted that for income to qualify for deduction under section 80-IA, it must be derived from the business of an industrial undertaking. The burden of proof lies on the assessee to establish a direct nexus between the income and the eligible business. The tribunal found that the excess cash was not recorded in the books and no explanation was provided linking it to the business. The tribunal also noted the negligible difference in stock during the survey, indicating the excess cash was unrelated to the business of Ayurvedic medicines. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the decision to tax the surrendered income under 'Income from other sources' and denied the deduction under section 80-IA.
3. Charging of Interest under Section 234B:
The last ground regarding the charging of interest under section 234B was deemed consequential and disposed of accordingly.
Conclusion:
The tribunal partially allowed the appeal by reducing the disallowance of expenses from 1/6th to 1/8th but upheld the denial of deduction under section 80-IA for the surrendered income and the charging of interest under section 234B.
-
2006 (7) TMI 272
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the income of Rs. 12,50,000 earned from the TV program 'Kaun Banega Crorepati' (KBC) should be taxed at the normal rate or at the maximum marginal rate of 40% under section 115BB of the Income-tax Act.
2. Whether the Explanation to section 2(24)(ix) inserted by the Finance Act, 2001, effective from 1st April 2002, is retrospective or prospective in nature.
3. The applicability of section 154 for rectification of the assessment order.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Tax Rate on Income from KBC:
The core issue was whether the income of Rs. 12,50,000 earned from KBC should be taxed at the normal rate or at the special rate of 40% under section 115BB. The Assessing Officer (AO) initially processed the return under section 143(1) at the normal rate but later issued a notice under section 154 to rectify this, contending that the income should be taxed at 40% as per section 115BB. The CIT(A) overturned the AO's decision, directing the tax to be charged at the normal rate.
2. Nature of Income from KBC:
The Revenue argued that the winnings from KBC were akin to lottery winnings, as participation was based on a lucky draw, thus falling under 'other games of any sort' in section 115BB. The Departmental Representative emphasized that such winnings required a good level of knowledge, similar to crossword puzzles, which are taxed under section 115BB. However, the Tribunal found that the winning in KBC was not merely due to luck but required skill and knowledge to answer questions correctly. The Tribunal distinguished KBC winnings from lottery winnings, which involve a payment for participation and winning by chance.
3. Retrospective or Prospective Application of Explanation to Section 2(24)(ix):
The Explanation to section 2(24)(ix), inserted by the Finance Act, 2001, effective from 1st April 2002, clarified that 'lottery' includes winnings from prizes awarded by draw of lots or chance and that 'card games and other games of any sort' include game shows on television. The Tribunal noted the Memorandum and Circular No. 14 of 2001, which stated that the amendment would apply from assessment year 2002-03. The Tribunal debated whether this Explanation was clarificatory (retrospective) or substantive (prospective). It concluded that since two views were possible, the issue was debatable and not suitable for rectification under section 154.
4. Applicability of Section 154:
The Tribunal emphasized that section 154 allows rectification only for mistakes apparent from the record. It cited Supreme Court rulings that a debatable issue or one requiring extensive arguments cannot be rectified under section 154. The Tribunal found that the nature of the Explanation to section 2(24)(ix) was debatable, making it inappropriate for rectification proceedings. Consequently, the AO's action to tax the income at 40% under section 154 was unjustified.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax the KBC winnings at the normal rate for the assessment year 2001-02, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal concluded that the Explanation to section 2(24)(ix) was prospective and the issue was beyond the scope of rectification under section 154.
-
2006 (7) TMI 267
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Rejection of the assessee's petition regarding the issue of shares worth Rs. 53 lakhs against outstanding interest.
3. Determination of whether there was a mistake apparent from the record warranting deduction under section 43B.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the order under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The assessee challenged the first appellate order, asserting that the order under section 154 was bad in law, violative of principles of natural justice, and void ab initio. The assessee had moved an application under section 154 to rectify an oversight in not claiming a deduction for interest paid by converting it into shares. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected this application, stating that no such claim was made in the return of income or during the proceedings under section 154. The first appellate authority upheld this rejection. The Tribunal considered whether the application under section 154 was maintainable and whether the AO's order was consistent with the provisions of the Income-tax Act.
2. Rejection of the assessee's petition regarding the issue of shares worth Rs. 53 lakhs against outstanding interest:
The assessee-company issued shares worth Rs. 53 lakhs to financial institutions against outstanding interest due to them, but due to oversight, did not claim this interest as a deduction under section 43B in its return of income. The AO rejected the petition on the grounds that no such claim was made in the return or during the subsequent proceedings. The Tribunal examined whether the lower authorities were justified in rejecting the application under section 154 and whether the materials available on record supported the assessee's claim for deduction.
3. Determination of whether there was a mistake apparent from the record warranting deduction under section 43B:
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had sufficient materials on record, including the Balance Sheet and a Note in Schedule-1, indicating the conversion of Rs. 53 lakhs into equity shares as per the Scheme sanctioned by BIFR. Despite this, the AO did not allow the deduction, leading to the question of whether this constituted a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents and CBDT Circular No. 669, which clarified that applications under section 154 could be entertained if the sums were paid on or before the due dates but omitted to be furnished with the return. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's failure to allow the deduction was a mistake apparent from the record and directed the AO to rectify this mistake under section 154.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction under section 43B for the interest converted into shares, and the AO's failure to allow this deduction constituted a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the AO to allow the application under section 154 on its merits. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.
-
2006 (7) TMI 265
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for deduction under Section 80-I of the IT Act, 1961, including income disclosed under Section 132(4) of the IT Act, 1961.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 80-I of the IT Act, 1961
Background and Context:
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order that directed the AO to allow deduction under Section 80-I of the IT Act, 1961, including the income disclosed under Section 132(4) of the IT Act, 1961. The AO had restricted the deduction to the profit and gain derived from the industrial undertaking, as per the P&L account, which was Rs. 1,73,601, and excluded the Rs. 4 lakhs disclosed as excess stock.
Arguments and Findings:
- The assessee claimed that the Rs. 4 lakhs disclosed as income was from the business and related to the manufacturing activities due to excess paper stock found during a survey/search.
- The AO rejected this claim, arguing that the deduction under Section 80-I was only for profits and gains derived directly from the industrial undertaking, and the excess stock did not qualify.
- The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's plea, stating that the excess stock was related to manufacturing activities and should be considered as income from the industrial undertaking, thus qualifying for deduction under Section 80-I.
- The Revenue contended that the excess stock of paper, being raw material, could not be considered as income derived from the industrial undertaking and thus should not be included for deduction under Section 80-I.
Legal Precedents and Interpretation:
- The distinction between "attributable to" and "derived from" was highlighted, with "derived from" having a narrower scope, as established in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT and reiterated in various other cases such as Sterling Foods vs. CIT, CIT vs. Jameel Leathers & Uppers, and Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. CIT.
- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Sterling Foods emphasized that for income to be "derived from" an industrial undertaking, there must be a direct nexus between the profits and the industrial undertaking.
- The Madras High Court in CIT vs. Pandian Chemicals Ltd. and Fenner (India) Ltd. vs. CIT further clarified that income must directly emerge from the industrial undertaking itself, not from ancillary activities like deposits or excess stock.
Conclusion:
- The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s decision was incorrect. The Rs. 4 lakhs disclosed due to excess stock found during the survey/search did not qualify as income derived from the industrial undertaking under Section 80-I.
- The derivation of income must be directly connected with the business activities of the industrial undertaking, not merely attributable to it.
- Therefore, the AO's action to exclude the Rs. 4 lakhs from the deduction under Section 80-I was justified.
Final Judgment:
- The appeal by the Revenue was accepted.
- The order of the CIT(A) was reversed, and the AO's decision was restored, disallowing the deduction under Section 80-I for the Rs. 4 lakhs disclosed as excess stock.
Summary:
The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision to exclude the Rs. 4 lakhs disclosed as excess stock from the deduction under Section 80-I, emphasizing the need for a direct nexus between the income and the industrial undertaking. The CIT(A)'s order was reversed, and the Revenue's appeal was accepted.
-
2006 (7) TMI 264
Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of penalty levied under Section 271D for violation of Section 269SS.
2. Consideration of reasonable cause for violation of Section 269SS.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Cancellation of Penalty Levied under Section 271D for Violation of Section 269SS:
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which canceled the penalty of Rs. 1,20,700 imposed under Section 271D for violation of Section 269SS. The assessee-company had accepted loans/deposits in cash of Rs. 20,000 or more from several individuals. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271D, asserting that the assessee had violated Section 269SS by accepting these loans/deposits otherwise than by an account payee cheque or draft. The AO imposed the penalty, concluding that the assessee had failed to adopt necessary precautions as required under the law.
2. Consideration of Reasonable Cause for Violation of Section 269SS:
The assessee argued that the loans were taken during the construction of a hospital and were urgently needed to make payments to laborers and suppliers because the bank was not releasing the term loan installments. The assessee submitted evidence of correspondence with the bank to support their claim of financial hardship and unavoidable circumstances. The CIT(A) accepted this explanation, concluding that the acceptance of deposits in cash was not with an intention to purposely violate Section 269SS and that the assessee had a reasonable cause under Section 273B. Consequently, the CIT(A) canceled the penalty.
Judgment Analysis:
The Tribunal examined the validity of Section 269SS, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in Asstt. Director of Inspection (Inv.) vs. Kum. A.B. Shanthi, emphasizing that the provision aimed to curb false explanations for unaccounted money. The Tribunal noted that Section 273B provides relief from penalties if a reasonable cause is established.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed accepted cash loans/deposits exceeding Rs. 20,000 in contravention of Section 269SS. While the assessee claimed urgent need for funds, the Tribunal observed that no substantial evidence was provided to demonstrate the immediate necessity or how the funds were utilized. The Tribunal highlighted that the assessee failed to furnish specific details about the urgency and the exact dates of the loans.
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to legal provisions and maintaining the majesty of law. It concluded that the assessee did not establish a reasonable cause for the violation and that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty. Therefore, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s order and restored the AO's penalty imposition.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the penalty of Rs. 1,20,700 imposed under Section 271D, finding no reasonable cause for the assessee's violation of Section 269SS. The appeal of the Revenue was accepted, and the CIT(A)'s order was reversed.
-
2006 (7) TMI 263
Issues Involved:
1. Short payment of Tribunal fee and condonation of delay.
2. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income.
3. Applicability of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) regarding surrendered income during search.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Short Payment of Tribunal Fee and Condonation of Delay:
The assessee initially paid a Tribunal fee of Rs. 500, which was less than the prescribed amount of Rs. 4,539. Upon receiving a defect memo, the assessee contended that the fee was correctly paid under section 253(6)(d) as the appeal was against a penalty and not against the quantum of income. Despite maintaining this position, the assessee eventually paid the difference of Rs. 4,039 to avoid dispute. The Tribunal considered whether the delay in payment could be condoned, referencing the Special Bench decision in Bidyut Kumar Sett v. ITO, which linked the filing fee with the amount of income assessed, including appeals against penalty for concealment.
The Tribunal noted that the right to appeal is a statutory right subject to conditions, and the appeal could only be deemed filed when the full fee was paid. The Tribunal referenced the ITAT Delhi 'A' Bench decision in Mohan Anand v. WTO, which allowed condonation of delay in similar circumstances. Following this precedent, the Tribunal admitted the appeal for hearing, considering the assessee's eventual compliance and the advice received.
2. Imposition of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(c) for Concealment of Income:
The assessee filed a return showing income of Rs. 54,594, which was later revised to Rs. 83,094 following a search operation. The assessment determined undisclosed income at Rs. 3,99,251, later reduced to Rs. 1,02,000 by the ITAT. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 60,000 for concealment of income. The assessee argued that the penalty should not be imposed as the addition was based on estimates, and the surrendered amount of Rs. 28,500 should not attract penalty.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty, referencing the Supreme Court decision in B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. v. CIT, which allowed penalty imposition even on estimated additions if the difference between assessed and returned income exceeded 20%. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the discrepancy to be false, thereby attracting Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c).
3. Applicability of Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) Regarding Surrendered Income During Search:
The Tribunal considered the applicability of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) concerning the surrendered income of Rs. 28,500 during the search. The Madras High Court decision in CIT v. S.D.V. Chandru was cited, which provided immunity from penalty for undisclosed income surrendered during a search and disclosed in the return, provided the tax and interest were paid.
Following this precedent, the Tribunal directed that the penalty should not be imposed on the surrendered amount of Rs. 28,500. Consequently, the penalty was to be restricted to the addition of Rs. 73,500, with necessary relief granted to the assessee.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal admitted the appeal after condoning the delay in payment of the Tribunal fee. On merits, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was upheld but restricted to the addition of Rs. 73,500, excluding the surrendered amount of Rs. 28,500. The appeal was partly allowed, providing the assessee with partial relief.
-
2006 (7) TMI 262
TDS - Applicability of section 194C - payments made to contractors who were given separate contracts for supply as well as for erection - activity of transmission and power distribution of electricity - whether the contracts in question are contracts of sale or they are work contracts - HELD THAT:- The contracts were not only to supply equipment, but also by way of separate contract to erect the transmission towers and also the sub-stations. The contract, though contained in the same document in some cases are in two parts. Simply because the supply and erection parts of the contract were entered into with the same party in some cases and in some other cases, were in two separate parts in the same agreement the nature of each part of the contract will not alter.
In this connection we may refer to the decision in the case of Walchandnagar Industries [1984 (11) TMI 304 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in which the Hon'ble High Court referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gannon Dunkerley & Co.[1958 (4) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that "the parties may enter into two contracts, one for the sale of goods and one for services. Even when such contracts are in one document they can be separate, for more so when they are in two separate documents."
The scope and object of each part of the contract is different. Though the supply portion and erection portion dovetail into each other, the erection portion does not control the supply portion and the supply contract does not become a works contract, just because there is an obligation cast on the supplier to erect the equipment which by that time has become the property of the purchaser. The title in the goods in respect of equipment/material to be supplied as per the terms of contract is to be transferred "ex-work" on dispatch as movable property. The critical test to be applied is as to when the title in the goods is transferred. Thus as the title in the goods were passed on to the assessee, before the commencement of the works or erection contract and as admitted by the assessee had treated these goods as its property and entered the same as such in its stock register before issuing the same for erection, it is a contract of sale and section 194C has no application. On erection portion as admitted TDS is made.
A plain reading of the section 194C along with CBDT Circular and applying the same to the facts of this case, where we find that the supplier does not work or process the material supplied by the purchaser and that the 'seller' supplied goods the title in which passed on to the purchaser/assessee, as a chattel, on delivery ex-work dispatch and as the assessee has already deducted tax at source from the erection portion of the contract treating it as a separate contract, we have to hold that section 194C is not applicable to the supply contract in question.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2006 (7) TMI 261
Issues:
1. Non-service of notice of hearing and denial of reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard.
2. Merits on the additions made by the AO and upheld by learned CIT(A).
Analysis:
Issue 1: The appeal was filed against the order of CIT(A)-XXIV for the block period from 1st April, 1988 to 31st Dec., 1998. Grounds 1 to 3 in the appeal raised concerns about the non-service of notice of hearing and denial of a fair opportunity to be heard. The learned CIT(A) proceeded ex parte as the notices for hearing were allegedly not received by the assessee. Despite the issuance of notices fixing dates for hearing, the assessee did not attend or file any reply, leading the learned CIT(A) to rely on the AO's order and confirm the additions made.
Issue 1 (contd.): The assessee, in an affidavit, affirmed not receiving the hearing notices and explained the challenges in receiving them due to the location of the market premises. The assessee argued that the lack of proper notice deprived them of a fair hearing, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal observed that there was no evidence of the notices being received by the assessee, indicating a lack of a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to present their case.
Issue 1 (contd.): The Tribunal, upon finding that the assessee was deprived of a fair opportunity, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed a fresh hearing to be conducted, allowing the assessee to present their case. Both parties consented to this decision, and the assessee agreed to appear before the CIT(A) within a specified timeframe for further directions on the date of the hearing. Consequently, the appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Issue 2: The remaining grounds in the appeal pertained to the merits of the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A). However, due to the primary issue of non-service of notice and denial of a fair hearing, the Tribunal's decision focused on setting aside the CIT(A)'s order for a fresh hearing rather than delving into the merits of the additions made by the tax authorities.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision primarily addressed the issue of non-service of notice of hearing and the denial of a reasonable opportunity to be heard, leading to the setting aside of the CIT(A)'s order for a fresh hearing, ultimately allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
............
|
9911796707
