|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 501 to 520 of 1407 Records
-
2015 (2) TMI 912
Levy of anti dumping duty - imports of caustic soda - extension of duties on the exports made by the appellant from Indonesia - sunsut review - Whether the Designated Authority was correct in rejecting the exports made by the appellant during the period of investigation as being temporary and unreliable and proceeding to give its findings on the likelihood of dumping and injury on the basis of other exports from Indonesia - Held that:- The fact that there were NO (i.e. Zero) exports prior to Jan. 2007 and after Dec. 2007 is certainly an occurrence which, besides being out-of-the-ordinary, has significant bearing for the decision whether these exports can be regarded as temporary and unreliable particularly when no good reasons are forthcoming from the appellant in this regard.
Having found the exports of the appellant to be unreliable and temporary the Authority proceeded to determine the likelihood of dumping and injury based on the determination relating to other exports from Indonesia. The Authority found a positive dumping margin, in respect of other exports from Indonesia, as reflected in Paragraph 25 of the Final Findings. It is settled position that anti-dumping duties are required to be country specific and there is no legal requirement to determine the appellant-specific dumping margin in sun-set review. On the aspect of injury, although duties were in force, the domestic industry continued to be injured by the exports from Indonesia, as reflected in the Final Findings. Thus the Authority rightly determined that there is a likelihood of dumping and injury, warranting continuation of duties from Indonesia. - As regards the grievance regarding inadequate disclosure, we find that the appellant has not clearly brought out the specific details, which were not provided to it. The Authority has disputed this. Even otherwise, the Authority has accepted all the information furnished by the appellant, and in respect of their exports determined a negative dumping margin based on the information furnished. Thus, they can not justifiably claim to have been prejudiced. - No infirmity in the findings of the Designated Authority - Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (2) TMI 911
Project management fee - ITAT deleted dis allowances - whether fees accrued in the preceding assessment year i.e. 2006-07 not allowable to the assessee in A. Y. 2007-08 under the mercantile system of accounting? - Held that:- CIT( A) and the Tribunal have reached a concurrent finding of fact that the amount claimed as an expenditure of ₹ 339 lakhs being paid as project management fees to M/s. Kumar Builders was only in respect of amount received for sale in the Assessment Year 2007-08. Consequently, no occasion can arise to disallow any part of the expenditure of ₹ 339 lakhs on the assumption that some amount thereof is attributable to an earlier Assessment Year. The finding of fact arrived at by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal is not shown in any manner to be perverse and/or arbitrary. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (2) TMI 910
Proceeding under Section 201 - whether barred by time? - Held that:- Section 201 itself was amended, by introduction of Section 201(1) (A), significantly that amendment was given irrespective effect from 01.04.1966. The Parliament consciously did not amend Section 201 by inserting sub-section (3) with irrespective effect. ITAT correctly affirmed an order of the CIT (Appeals) to the effect that the treatment of the assessee’s company as one in default for the purpose of proceeding under Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, is barred by time. No substantial question of law arises - Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (2) TMI 909
Entitlement to deduction Section 80IA - Held that:- All the business undertakings are wind mills and they have claimed the benefit of deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years in question and for the subsequent years as well. Having exercised their option and their losses have been set off already against other income of the business enterprise, the assessee in this appeal falls within the parameters of Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act. In the decision reported in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills V. Asst. CIT (2010 (3) TMI 860 - Madras High Court) there appears to be no distinction on facts. - Decided in favour of the assessee
-
2015 (2) TMI 908
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - re-imbursement of expenses and claim for long term capital loss rejected ITAT deleted penalty levy - Held that:- As far as issue of reimbursement is concerned, the ITAT noticed that the above was based only on account of letter dated 28.10.2009 addressed to the assessee by AO. After noticing the materials on record the ITAT held that the amount had in fact been disclosed in AY 2007-08 and they were directed to be deleted in appellate proceedings. Given these set of facts the ITAT felt that at least penal action was not warranted even though in quantum proceedings the assessee might have failed. We see no infirmity in the findings which are based upon pure appreciation of facts.
Penalty imposed on quantum of capital loss made by the assessee this Court noticed that all that the assessee did was to say that the transaction was reversed inasmuch as the amount received from Mr. Rana Iqbal Singh Jolly was returned to him. Whether that transaction was shrouded or suspicious or not, the fact remains that the capital loss was claimed on account of the subsequent sale to M/s Patel Estate (P) Ltd. Having regard to these facts, the ITAT noticed -and rightly so - that the assessee could not be accused of having furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed income or amounts which were liable to be taxed in its return so as to call for penal action under Section 271(1)(c) based upon binding rules of the Supreme Court including CIT V. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ) was justified and warranted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (2) TMI 907
Income from undisclosed sale - Tribunal upholding the order of the CIT(A) directing AO to tax 4% net profit on unaccounted sales of ₹ 35 lakhs - entire sales which are unaccounted cannot be undisclosed income of the assessee, particularly as the purchase had been accounted for held by tribunal - Held that:- Grievance of the Revenue that Section 69C of the Act is to be invoked and entire amount of undisclosed sales has to be brought to tax is unacceptable as we are unable to appreciate how Section 69C of the Act which speaks of unexplained expenditure is all at relevant for this appeal. We are not concerned with any unexplained expenditure in this case.
CIT(A) and Tribunal have came to the concurrent finding that the purchases have been recorded and only some of the sales are unaccounted. Thus, both the authorities held that it is not the entire sales consideration which is to be brought to tax but only the profit attributable on the total unrecorded sales consideration which alone can be subject to income tax. The view taken by the authorities is a reasonable and a possible view. - Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (2) TMI 906
Net profit addition - AO proceeded to work out "after rejection of the assessee's books of account" the gross profit rate at 5.35% and on that basis, determined the net profit to be 1.96% - based upon the previous year's assessments - Held that:- AO did not apply his mind to the circumstances of the case, considering that the assessee had urged, during the course of the proceedings, that the cost of raw material had increased. Likewise, the rate of interest payable had increased, considering that it had borrowed amounts in the routine course of its business. That explanation, was furnished to argue that the rate of net profit was 1.04%, as opposed to the rate of the previous years i.e. 1.96%.
By all accounts, the explanation of the assessee was reasonable as was held by the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT. No reason to interfere with the concurrent findings. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (2) TMI 905
Rejection of application u/s 12AA - Tribunal remanding the issue back to the CIT on non consideration of documentary evidences - Held that:- It is evident from the records that the main plea taken by the assessee/respondent herein before the Tribunal appears to be on violation of principles of natural justice stating that documents and evidence produced by the assessee/respondent have not been considered by the authority is acceptable. It is clear from the order passed by the Tribunal that it is an open remand without any fetters on the department and, therefore, no grievance can be addressed in this appeal. - Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (2) TMI 904
Excise duty refund received - taxability u/s 41(1) - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- In view of the decision in the case of Polyflex (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2002 (9) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court] wherein, the hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the refund of excise duty has to be treated as deemed profit. In that view of the matter, the above decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court, the judgment which is sought to be relied upon by the Tribunal in the case of CIT v. Bharat Iron and Steel Industries reported in [1992 (1) TMI 40 - GUJARAT High Court] is reversed. - Decided in favour of revenue.
-
2015 (2) TMI 903
Stay of assessment order in pending appeal denied by CIT(A) - Held that:- The Assessing Officer and the Commissioner do not stay the order in appeal but only stay the demand issued consequent to the order which is in appeal. This only to ensure that the assessee is not deemed to be a assessee in default. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought not to have confused his jurisdiction as an appellate authority with that of either the Assessing Officer under section 220(6) of the Act or to that of the Commissioner of Income-tax in his administrative capacity.
Thus set aside the impugned order dated June 30, 2014 of CIT(A). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is directed to dispose of the stay application as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three weeks from today. - Revenue will not adopt any coercive proceedings against the petitioner till the disposal of its stay application by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and for the period of two weeks from the date of the communication of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (2) TMI 902
Extension of stay refused - ITAT refused to extend the stay citing section 254(2A) which enjoins that the interim relief granted not to exceed one year - Held that:- It is apparent that the ITAT was satisfied about the overall interest of justice when it, in fact, amended the interim relief in the first instance, i.e., on December 16, 2011. Whilst, the statutory provision which prevents it from extending the interim stay is undenied, yet this court's power under article 226 of the Constitution to pass appropriate orders in the interest of justice, equally cannot be denied. In the circumstances, the respondent is hereby restrained from enforcing the tax deduction in respect of the assessment year in question assessment year 2007-08, during the pendency of the petitioner's appeal. It would request the Tribunal to dispose of that appeal preferably within three months from today. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (2) TMI 901
Surrender of sub-tenancy right - capital gain v/s casual income - Held that:- As decided in CIT v. D. P. Sandu Bros., Chembur P. Ltd. [2005 (1) TMI 13 - SUPREME Court] a tenancy right is a capital asset and its surrender would attract section 45 and the gains derived would be assessable, if at all, only under the head 'Capital gains'. That being so, it cannot be treated as a casual and nonrecurring receipt under section 10(3) and subject to tax under section 56 of the Act. If the income cannot be taxed under section 45, it cannot be taxed at all.
Thus it becomes clear that the appellant- Revenue could have taxed the amount of ₹ 5,00,000 under the head of "Capital gains", which was received towards surrendering of tenancy right from the lessor and not under any other head. - ITAT correctly decided matter - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (2) TMI 900
Registration u/s 12AA - Amendment of the trust deed - whether need not be made by approaching the appropriate civil court ? - Tribunal directing the DIT(E) to grant registration to the assessee-trust under section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Held that:- When the power had been given to the trustees by the settler, it can be amended without approaching the civil court provided all the conditions laid down by the settler are fulfilled. The approach of the civil court is required where there is no such power. No law has been produced before us that the trustees without approaching the civil court in spite of the specific power being given by the settler cannot change the trust deed. According to us, when the power has been given to the trustees by the settler, no further power basically from the civil court is required. See CIT v. Kamla Town Trust [1995 (11) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court] . Thus ribunal has correctly dealt with the matter in this case and the rectified trust deed can be relied on by the Revenue authorities for the purpose of registration. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (2) TMI 899
Income from provision of seismic survey vessels on hire to CGG Services (erstwhile Compagnie General De Geophysique (CGG) / CGG Marine) - taxable under the provision of section 44BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 OR as "royalty" under section 9(1 )(vi) of the Act - DRP held that the income earned from provision of seismic survey vessel is also taxable as "royalty" under Article 13 of India-France DTAA - Held that:- On no stretch of imagination can we hold that the nature of receipts on account of provision of supply of vessels on hire basis can have character of fees for technical services within the meaning of Expln. 2 to s. 9(1)(vii). The services required by CGG (Hirer) are rendered by the assessee by lending the vessels on hire cannot bear the character of fees for technical services. The assessee's income no doubt is derived from letting out the plant/ship which is used for prospecting for or extraction or production of mineral oil, therefore, the second limb of sec. 44BB is clearly attracted in the instant case. The non-resident assessee in our opinion satisfies the requirement stipulated by sec. 44BB and thus, qualifies its income earned thus to be treated and taxed as per the special provision and not otherwise as contended by the Revenue. We could not find any restriction or fetter in section 44BB as contended by the Revenue to disqualify the assessee in applying the said section to compute its tax. We cannot read what is not said in sec. 44BB and add words in sec. 44BB to bring in a restricted interpretation as contended by the Revenue to the effect that only direct contract with the oil producing company would only qualify. It is nobody's case that assessee is not a non-resident nor it has not given on hire its ship for the purpose of prospecting for or extracting or production of mineral oils. So the assessee falls in the special provision meant for computing profits and gain in connection with the business of exploration etc. of mineral oils; and its income has to be computed as per the said provision unless and otherwise the assessee claims lower profits and gains as stipulated under sub-section (3) of section 44BB.
Also we take note of the fact that in A.Y. 2004-05, the AO accepted the claim of the assessee that the income need to be taxed u/s 44BB and in A.Y. 2006-07 the DRP also directed that the income of the assessee to be taxed as per sec. 44BB of the Act. No changes in facts or circumstances were pointed out by the ld. DRP in the instant assessment year. See Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Rajeev Grinding Mills.(2003 (4) TMI 7 - DELHI High Court ). Thus on the principle of consistency too no deviation was warranted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (2) TMI 898
Undeclared income - CIT(A) directing AO to give credit of admitted undeclared income of ₹ 3,41,90,000/-(3,05,00,000/- + 36,90,000/-) shown in the return of income filed when the assessing officer has given due credit for the same while computing the taxable income of the assessee in the assessment order - Held that:- Additional income of ₹ 3,05,00,000/- was accepted by the department and while computing the total income the AO has taken the same into account. Accordingly, we do not find any justification on the part of the CIT(A) for deleting the addition of ₹ 3,05,00,000/- on the plea that same was double addition. Similarly, a sum of ₹ 36,90,000/- was directed by the CIT(A) to be deleted on the plea that it was double addition. However, there is no such double addition. Accordingly, we set aside the order of CIT(A) insofar as he has deleted the addition of ₹ 3,05,00,000/- and ₹ 36,90,000/-. - Decided in favour of revenue.
Unexplained expenditure - CIT(A)deleted addition made u/s 69C - CIT(A) held that provisions of section 40A(3) cannot be applied to expenses as provisions of section 40A(3) are not applicable to block proceedings - Held that:- AO has himself noted that "as per the MOU, the amount of ₹ 5,94,96,000 was to be paid to the respective members of the Society (i.e., Jai Ganesh Society) at the time final selling of the plot to another party or on or before 31.01.2008 whichever is earlier. Accordingly the cash payment made to the CHS was made directly by ICONIC REALTORS but on behalf of M/s Pathik Constructions so that the transaction can be completed expeditiously. Hence, taxing M/s Pathik Construction on this account does not arise as no payment has been made by the assessee firm in cash. Therefore, provisions of section 69C or 40A(3) are not applicable in the assessee firm’s case. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition - Decided in favour of assessee.
Deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) - whether advances received by the assessee from MIs Kalpana Struct Con Private Limited are commercial transactions - Held that:- CIT(A) has held that there is no question of attracting the provisions of section 2(22)(e). The findings of CIT(A) had not been controverted by ld. DR by bringing any positive material on record. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere in the decision of CIT(A) for the A.Y.2008-09 and 2009-2010 for deleting addition made u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (2) TMI 897
Transfer pricing adjustment - selection of comparable - Held that:- For M/s Accentia Technologies Ltd. has not been found to be comparable to a concern rendering IT enabled services. The arguments putforth by the TPO, which has been reiterated before us, do not justifiably meet with the assessee’s plea for exclusion of M/s Accentia Technologies Ltd. from the final set of comparables. The plea of the assessee is quite potent and is in-fact based on the discussion available in public domain in the form of Annual financial statement of the said concern. Moreover, in the light of the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of PTC Software (India) Private Limited (2015 (1) TMI 466 - ITAT PUNE), we find no reason to negate the plea raised by the assessee for exclusion of Accentia Technologies Ltd. from the final set of comparables.
For Crossdomain Solutions Ltd it is indulged in high skill IT services which are not comparable to the routine I.T. Enabled services. Further, the company is engaged in providing Niche services as well as developed its own brand ‘Exdion’ to target the insurance industry in US. Thus we uphold assessee’s plea for exclusion of Crossdomain Solutions Ltd. from the final set of comparables.
For M/s Cosmic Global Ltd.in relation to the financial year under consideration, the business model in which M/s Cosmic Global Ltd. has functioned is quite dissimilar to the business model of the assessee while carrying out the activity of an ITES provider. Moreover, none of the objections raised by the assessee have been met by the TPO on the basis of any cogent reasoning. On that count also, we find that the plea of the assessee to exclude M/s Cosmic Global Ltd. from the final set of comparables is justified. The objection of the TPO that the said concern was found comparable by the assessee in earlier year cannot be the sole basis to include the said concern in the list of comparables.
For Eclerx Services Ltd. the plea of the assessee that the said concern is functionally dissimilarly to the assessee, has been wrongly rejected by the TPO. Even before us, there is no cogent reasoning brought out by the Revenue to assail assessee’s plea for exclusion of M/s Eclerx Services Ltd. from the final set of comparables. We direct accordingly.
For Coral Hubs Ltd. (Formerly known as Vishal Informational Technologies Ltd.) the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case had held that the said concern was found to be operating in different functional environment and the same was excluded for the purpose of comparability analysis, thus we uphold the plea of the assessee in excluding the margins of the said concern M/s. Vishal Technologies Ltd.
Since we have upheld the plea of the assessee for exclusion of (i) Accentia Technologies Limited; (ii) Crossdomain Solutions Limited.; (iii) Cosmic Global Limited; (iv) Eclerx Services Limited; and, (v) Coral Hubs Limited from the final set of comparables, the other Grounds of Appeal raised by the assessee in order to assail the addition of ₹ 9,56,21,498/- on account of transfer pricing adjustment are rendered academic and are not being adjudicated for the present. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (2) TMI 896
Addition on lower Gross Profit rate - assessee has made purchase of raw material and sold finished goods to specified persons covered u/s 40A(2)(b) - CIT(A) deleted addition admitting additional evidence - Held that:- The Assessing Officer has made disallowance after rejecting the books of account only on two counts - one is with regard to the payment towards electricity charges and the other with regard to the alleged inflated purchases made from the sister concern and on both these counts, the ld. CIT(A) has categorically held that the disallowances were made by the Assessing Officer having ignored the available documents, materials and the books of account produced before him. The ld. CIT(A) accordingly deleted the addition. During the course of hearing, the ld. D.R. could not point out any specific defect in the order of the ld. CIT(A). We, however, have examined the material on record and we find that the documents available on record were properly appreciated by the ld. CIT(A) and we find no infirmity in his order on these issues. Accordingly, we confirm the same - Decided in favour of assessee.
Unexplained cash credit under section 68 - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- As before the Assessing Officer, the assessee has furnished complete details in support of its contention that the amounts were received by M/s Hans Castings Pvt. Ltd. on account of business transaction and the same amount was debited to the account of M/s Hans Castings Pvt. Ltd. and credited to these parties. It was also contended that in the subsequent assessment year, the sales were effected, but the Assessing Officer did not appreciate these facts and made addition under section 68 of the Act, having treated the credit entry as unexplained; whereas the ld. CIT(A) has appreciated all the evidence filed before the lower authorities and was of the view that the said credits have been in the nature of purchase advances through banking channels, therefore, no addition under section 68 of the Act is called for. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Non genuine transaction - assessee was unable to file copy of contract note, purchase and sales bills issued by the broker and to prove genuineness of the transaction - Held that:- The basis for addition of ₹ 40,97,700/- was on account of nonavailability of details of 10,000 shares held by the assessee. This mistake was pointed out before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has re-examined the details furnished before the lower authorities and having noted that the Assessing Officer has missed one entry of 10,000 shares on 20.2.2004, he rectified the mistake and deleted the addition. The assessee has also filed the details of purchase and sale of shares at pages 74 to 101 of the compilation of the assessee. During the course of hearing, the ld. D.R. could not point out any specific defect in the order of the ld. CIT(A) with regard to the availability of 10,000 shares with the assessee; whereas the ld. CIT(A) has categorically adjudicated the issue of discrepancy of 10,000 shares, which has resulted into an addition of ₹ 40,97,700/-, thus find no reason and no rational for addition of ₹ 40,97,700/- made by AO - Decided in favour of assessee.
Addition u/s 41(1) - the assessee was unable to file confirmation of accounts and to prove the genuineness of the transactions before the A.O. - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- In the instant case, these are commercial transactions and it cannot be treated to be cessation of liability under section 41(1) of the Act for making an addition. We, therefore, find no merit in the addition made by the Assessing Officer. On carefully examining the order of the ld. CIT(A) it is find that the ld. CIT(A) has properly examined the issue in the light of the relevant evidence. Moreover, the evidence filed before the Assessing Officer are sufficient to hold that provisions of section 41(1) of the Act cannot be invoked, as these purchases were made in the month of March, 2004 and the liabilities were liquidated in the succeeding year. Accordingly, we find no merit in the ground of the Revenue and the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue is confirmed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (2) TMI 895
Disallowance u/s 14A - CIT(A) deleting the addition made u/s 14A on account of disallowance of expenditure incurred in earning dividend income - Held that:- Once the Assessing Officer has any reason to doubt the expenditures and is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditures in relation to the income which does not form part of the total income under the Income-tax Act, the Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditures so incurred in accordance with such method as may be prescribed under rule 8D of the Rules. No option was given to the Assessing Officer to adopt different formula to compute the amount of expenditures incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. Only two options are left with the Assessing Officer - one is to accept the expenditures claimed by the assessee and if he disputes the same, he has to compute the expenditures by adopting the formula laid down in rule 8D of the Rules.
Once provisions of section 14A of the Act are to be invoked, the disallowance is to be computed as per rule 8D of the rules. In the instant case, nothing has been brought on record to demonstrate that there was any incorrectness in the computation of disallowance as per rule 8D. It was simply contended that disallowance under section 14A of the Act cannot exceed the receipt of dividend income. This aspect has already been examined by us in the foregoing paragraphs. Since no dispute has been raised with regard to the computation of disallowance as per rule 8D, we find no infirmity therein and accordingly we confirm the order of the Assessing Officer after setting aside the order of the ld. CIT(A), as the ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee without looking to the mode of computation as per rule 8D of the rules. - Decided in favour of revenue.
-
2015 (2) TMI 894
Additional deduction u/s 35(2AB) disallowed - no inhouse scientific research has been carried out by the appellant - Held that:- Merely getting approval from ARAI and purchasing certain material from the market cannot be said to be carrying out in-house research & development activity. Research & development means to carry out research to find out some new technology or new equipment or product and that should be carried out in-house as per the requirement of section 35(2AB) of the Act. The assessee has failed to justify his claim of in-house scientific research carried out and therefore, no deduction under section 35(2AB) is admissible to the assessee. - Decided against assessee.
Disallowance of interest paid on loans - CIT(A) directing the assessing officer that interest from FDs be assessed under the head Income from Other Sources - Held that:- The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was ₹ 63,61,399/- being the difference in these two figures. Since the assessee could not establish that borrowings were for business purposes, deduction is not allowable u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act and moreover, u/s 57(iii) also, deduction is already allowed by the Assessing Officer to the extent of interest income and entire interest expenditure cannot be allowed because it could not be established by the assessee that the borrowing was made for making investment in FDR by showing direct nexus between the borrowing from bank and making FDR in bank. Considering all these facts, we do not find any reason to interfere in the orders of the authorities below. - Decided against assessee.
Disallowance of Bad and Doubtful Debts, Advances and others written off - Held that:- a clear finding is given by CIT(A) that the assessee has not written off bad debts in question and assessee has credited the amount to the account with the heading ‘provision for doubt debts.’ As per the provision of section 36(1)(vii), bad debt is allowable on actual write off and not on provision and hence, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue - Decided against assessee.
Fees to Registrar of Companies for enhancement of authorized capital - revenue expense v/s Capital expenditure - Held that:- The amount in question was debited by the assessee in the profit & loss account in the present year, the same is not allowable as deduction in view of these judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd. vs. CIT [1997 (2) TMI 11 - SUPREME Court] and Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT [1996 (12) TMI 6 - SUPREME Court]. However, if the assessee can show that the cheque in question was not encashed by the ROC and reverse entry was passed by the assessee in the next year and the corresponding amount was taken by the assessee as income in the next year then in the next year, the same should not be taxed.- Decided against assessee.
Payment of gratuity paid under the scheme of LIC - disallowance invoking the provisions of sec.40A(7) - Held that:- Since the issue is covered against the assessee by the Tribunal decision in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2002-03 and 2003-04 [2014 (8) TMI 767 - ITAT LUCKNOW] we do not find any reason to take a contrary view - Decided against assessee.
Disallowance of interest subsidy on housing loan - non deduction of TDS - Held that:- in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2002-03 and 2003-04, this issue was decided in favour of the assessee and it was held that the interest subsidy to the employees is for maintaining harmonious relationship and welfare of the employees, which is nothing but business expenditure. Respectfully following this Tribunal decision in assessee’s own case, we hold that in the present year also, this disallowance is not justified. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Unreconciled bank balance in the bank account - addition of ₹ 53,000/- - Held that:- there was a difference of ₹ 53,000/- as unreconciled bank balance in the bank account at Chennai for which no explanation was furnished by the assessee before the Assessing Officer or CIT(A). Even before us, no explanation has been furnished and therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. - Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (2) TMI 893
Capital gain - transfer of development rights in land near PARVATI, Pune - Held that:- The assessee has not given the possession of the property in question to the developer for F.Y. 2008-09 (A.Y. 2009-10) and hence, there is no transfer within the meaning of Sec. 45 r.w.s. 2(47)(v) of the Act. CIT(A)-II, Pune erred in law and on facts in confirming the taxability of receipt as capital gains and holding that the said amount is part consideration arising from transfer of development rights in land near PARVATI, Pune. - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
9911796707
