|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1903 Records
-
2015 (12) TMI 1850
Unexplained expenditure under section 69C relating to the purchase of goods - addition based on name of the two suppliers figured in the list of suspicious dealers in the website of sales Tax department - eligible proof that the assessee has indulged in the bogus purchases - CIT(A) deleted the additions - HELD THAT:- When the AO himself has not doubted the purchase and sale transaction and all the expenditure has been duly accounted in the books of account, then it can not be said to be a case of unexplained expenditure. It is not the case of the AO that the goods were purchased by the assessee at a lesser rate or that someone has supplied the goods to the assessee for free or that the assessee has booked a bogus expenditure. When it is not so, solely on the basis of unconfronted and general statements of alleged suppliers made before sales tax authorities, addition u/s 69C under the circumstances on account of purchases are not warranted at all.
Assessee has relied upon the decision of Nikunj Enterprises (P.) Ltd.” [2013 (1) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has upheld the findings of the tribunal that where the assessee filed letters of confirmation of suppliers, copies of bank statement showing entries of payment through account payee cheques to suppliers and stock reconciliation statements, sale of purchased goods was not doubted, the transactions were supported with evidences and confirmations, in such an event merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the AO or the Ld. CIT(A), one can not conclude that the purchases were not genuine.- Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1849
Computation of deductio u/s 10A - Assessee incurred sales commission in foreign currency during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2006-07 - AO excluded it from the export turnover, however, not reduced from the total turnover - CIT(A) by following the decision of ITO vs Sak Soft Ltd [2009 (3) TMI 243 - ITAT MADRAS-D] observed that for the purpose of applying the formula u/s 10A, the sales commission expenses which was incurred in foreign currency for providing technical services outside India are to be excluded both from export turnover as well as total turnover - HELD THAT:- Since the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Special Bench in Sak Soft Ltd (supra) and the CIT(A) has followed the same, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the same is confirmed. - Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1848
Validity of subsequent settlement made in favour of the Temple Managing Committee - the disputed land was earlier settled in the name of Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri, Marfat Siddha Brundaban Ramanuj Das.
Whether the suit lands can vest in the Respondent Math in the light of the provisions of the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955? - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, there is a clear conflict between the proviso of Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act, 1951 and Sections 5 and 33 of the Temple Act, 1955. It is also clear that both the above statutory provisions of the Acts cannot survive together. While the rule of harmonious construction must be given effect to as far as possible, when the provisions of two statutes are irreconcilable, it needs to be decided as to which provision must be given effect to. In the instant case, Section 2(oo) proviso in its entirety is not violative of the provisions of the Temple Act.
In the case in hand, the first part of the proviso of Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act, 1951 cannot be allowed to sustain. Clearly, the intention of the legislature could not have been to render virtually the entire Temple Act, enacted on the specific subject, meaningless, by way of enacting a proviso to Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act, 1951 as an amendment in 1974, which is the general legislation in the instant case. Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act, 1951, thus, to that extent requires to be struck down so that both the OEA Act, 1951 as well as the Temple Act, 1955 can be given due effect in their respective field of operation. In exercise of the powers conferred Under Article 142 of the Constitution, this Court can pass any order as may be "necessary for doing complete justice" in a case before it. In the instant case, great injustice will be caused to the Appellant Temple if the rights conferred upon it by the Temple Act are allowed to be taken away by operation of the proviso to Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act. Therefore, we have to strike down the proviso to Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act and also quash the notification dated 18.03.1974 in so far as it relates to the property of Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri - Further, it is a settled principle of law that once a property is vested by an Act of legislature, to achieve the laudable object, the same cannot be divested by the enactment of any subsequent general law and vest such property under such law. Similarly, if in the instant case, we were to accept the contentions advanced by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Math, then Sections 5 and 33 of the Temple Act, 1955 will be rendered useless and nugatory and thereby the laudable object and intendment of the Temple Act will be defeated and the interest of the public at large will be affected.
Whether even otherwise, the Math had the right to prefer claim rights in respect of the Temple Lands and initiate the proceedings under the OEA Act, 1951 by virtue of being an intermediary? - HELD THAT:- Since the Tahsildar performs only an administrative function under the OEA Act, 1951 and not a quasi judicial function, thus, he was not competent to pass the order of settlement of claim either Under Section 6 or 7 or 8 of the OEA Act, 1951. For the reasons stated in answer to Point No. 1 above, vesting of the suit lands in favour of the Math is bad in law. Further, as we have already held supra that once the land already vested in the Temple Committee Under Sections 5 and 33 of the Temple Act, 1955 which is a special enactment to deal with the properties endowed to the Appellant Temple Committee, the same could not have been divested by applying the provisions of the OEA Act, 1951 by way of an amendment to the Act by insertion of Sections 2(oo) and 3A in the OEA Act, 1951, as the operation of the said Act and the Temple Act, 1955 are in different fields and the objects and intendment of the abovementioned two Acts are entirely different. A constitution bench of this Court in the case of Calcutta Gas Co. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [1962 (2) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] held that in case of a conflict or overlap between different entries, the rule of harmonious construction must be applied to give effect to all the entries.
Thus, there was no need for the Temple Committee to file claim proceedings Under Section 8A of the OEA Act, 1951, in respect of its own lands which were already vested in it Under Section 5 of the Temple Act, 1955. The suit lands vest in the Temple Committee itself. Thus, in view of the provisions of the Temple Act, 1955, the settlement of the suit lands in favour of the Respondent Math cannot be sustained, as it is bad in law.
Since we have categorically recorded the finding both on facts and in law while answering Point No. 1 in favour of the Appellant Temple Committee holding that the provisions of the OEA Act, 1951 have no application to the lands of the Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri, there is no need for us to pass an order in favour of the Temple under the OEA Act, 1951 as the suit lands were already vested in favour of the Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri by virtue of the provisions of the Temple Act, 1955.
Application allowed.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1847
MAT Computation u/s 115JB - Deduction on account of prior period expenditure from net profit shown in Profit & Loss Account for the purpose of computing book profit u/s 115JB - HELD THAT:- Only in cases where a particular item of income or expenditure is required to be disclosed in the Profit & Loss Account but was disclosed in the notes to accounts, then such item of income or expenditure will be treated as part of Profit & Loss Account for the purposes of computing profit u/s 115JB. Assessee has not brought on record anything to show as to how this amount was required to be part of Profit & Loss Account prepared in accordance with part II of Schedule VI of the Companies Act.
We further note that the CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee on the premise that once assessee has disclosed this amount in notes to accounts, then the same will be treated as disclosed in Profit & Loss Account and consequently has to be adjusted for computation of book profit u/s 115JB.
CIT(A) has not gone into this aspect of the issue whether this prior period expenditure was required to be part of Profit & Loss Account as per Schedule VI of Companies Act or not. Therefore, if this amount was not required to be part of Profit & Loss Account prepared as per Schedule VI of the Companies Act, then undisputedly this amount not being part of any of the clauses of Explanation to sec. 115JB cannot be excluded from net profit for the purposes of computing book profit u/s 115JB.
Since neither the revenue nor the assessee has furnished any record in support of their respective claims, whether this amount of prior period expenditure was required to be part of Profit & Loss Account prepared as per provisions of Schedule VI of the Companies Act, therefore, we set aside this issue to the record of the CIT(A) to re-examine the issue in light of the relevant provisions of Schedule VI of the Companies Act as well as the relevant accounting standard applicable on this item of expenditure and then give a finding whether this amount of prior period expenditure is required to be part of profit and loss account or not - Appeal of the revenue allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1846
TDS u/s 194J - Disallowing the expenses on account of violation of the provisions of TDS - payment from the party/ organizers for the artistes - assessee submitted that she is acting as a co-ordinator between artists and the organizer for arranging musical programmes - HELD THAT:- The assessee receives the payments from the organizers after TDS and make over the negotiated amount without TDS since the appellant is representing and acting for and on behalf of the organizers. All the artistes are very famous, widely acclaimed and have themselves furnished declaration with PAN that they will be directly responsible for their respective tax matters and one of them, Alka Yagnik even unequivocally stated that she had already paid income tax on such income.
DR vehemently relied on the orders of authorities below. We find from the aforesaid discussion that AO disallowed the expenses claimed by assessee due to violation of provision to Sec. 194-J of the Act. The argument of the assessee that the recipient of income has paid the tax in their respective hands has also been regarded. However, we find that there is an amendment in proviso to Sec. 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 1st proviso to Sec. 201, wherein, if any payee has paid the taxes by offering / disclosing the said receipt in his / her return of income, then the payer (the assessee herein) should not be treated as assessee in default and no disallowance u/s/. 40(a)(ia) of the Act could operate in that scenario.
As relying on Ansal Land mark Township (P) Ltd. [2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we deem it fit and appropriate in the interest of justice and fair play to set aside this issue to the file of Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh in the light of the aforesaid judgment to ensure whether the deductee has paid taxes on their income. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify whether the payees have included the subject mentioned receipts in their respective returns and paid taxes thereon or not. If that is so, then disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act shall not be made in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the ground raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1845
Seeking restoration of name of Company in the register of companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies - Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 - HELD THAT:- The notice in respect of action under Section 560 was not sent to the registered office of the company. Consequently, the condition precedent for the initiation of proceedings to strike off the name of petitioner from the Register maintained by the respondent was not satisfied - Looking to the fact that the petitioner is stated to be a running company; and that it has filed this petition within the stipulated limitation period, and to the decision of the Bombay High Court in PURUSHOTTAMDASS VERSUS REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES [1984 (4) TMI 247 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY]; it is only proper that the impugned orderof the respondent dated 23.06.2007, which struck off the name of the petitioner from the Register of Companies, be set aside.
Looking to the fact that annual returns and balance sheets were not filed for almost twelve years, the primary responsibility for ensuring that proper returns and other statutory documents are filed, in terms of the statute and the rules, remains that of the management.
The restoration of the company's name to the Register maintained by the Registrar of Companies will be subject to payment of costs of ₹ 22,000/- to be paid to the common pool fund of the Official Liquidator - petition allowed.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1844
Non admission of addiontioal evidence - CIT(A) has passed the appellate order without considering the application u/s. 250(4) read with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules filed by the assessee - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has not considered the application moved by the assessee for leading additional evidence u/r. 46A of the Rules. In order to meet the ends of justice, we are of the considered view that the order passed by learned CIT(A) without deciding the application for leading additional evidence moved by the assessee is not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore the same is set aside and send back to the file of learned CIT(A) with the direction to decide the application moved by the assessee u/r. 46A after providing opportunity to the assessee. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
-
2015 (12) TMI 1843
Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution - HELD THAT:- During the course of hearing today, nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. The notice of hearing was sent to the assessee through Registered Post on 05.11.2015, which has not yet been returned back by the Postal Authority. We find that on earlier occasion, when the case was listed the matter was adjourned at the request of the assessee. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter.
The law aids those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in well known dictum, “VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT’. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd.[1991 (5) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-D] we treat this appeal as unadmitted.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1842
TP Adjustment - disallowance of the corporate service charges - HELD THAT:- It is seen from the DRP’s order for A Y 2010-11 that observing that the facts of the matter are similar to those for A. Y. 2009-10, the DRP followed the same findings and decisions therein. In that view of the matter, we follow the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the assessee’s own case for A. Y. 2009-10 [2015 (9) TMI 286 - ITAT MUMBAI] and accordingly, in the interest of equity and justice, remit this matter of the computation of the ALP of the international transactions on account of the payment of corporate service charges by the assessee to its AE, to the file of the DRP for fresh adjudication by way of a speaking and reasoned order after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard. It is accordingly ordered. Consequently, ground no. 1 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Disallowance of Depreciation on goodwill - assessee contends that the AO erred in not following the directions issued by the DRP to allow the assessee depreciation on goodwill u/s. 32(1)(ii) - HELD THAT:- For A. Y. 2010-11 that the AO has not considered and allowed the assessee depreciation on goodwill of polymehtane business and textile effects business as directed by the DRP - We, therefore, direct the AO to follow the directions of the DRP and compute and allow the assessee depreciation on goodwill for A. Y. 2010-11.
Depreciation on intangibles - HELD THAT:- We find that the very same issue of allowability of the assesee’s claim of depreciation on intangible assets viz. Material supply contracts, brand usage and distribution networks was considered at length by a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in[2015 (9) TMI 286 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein it has been held that the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on intangible assets. Decided in favour of the assessee.
Disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D - As contended that the authorities below ought to have taken into account that investments made were by way of strategic investments in its subsidiary concern out of interest free funds - HELD THAT:- Following the aforesaid decisions in the cases of Holcim India (P) Ltd. [2014 (9) TMI 434 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Cheminvest Ltd.[2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we hold that since the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the year under consideration, i. e. assessment year 2010-11, no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act can be made and accordingly delete the disallowance made in this regard by the authorities below.
Disallowance of Expenditure on payment basis u/s. 43B - not allowing deduction for payment it made in connection with liabilities of CIBA Speciality Ltd. taken over by way of slump sale - assessee submitted that the assessee had taken over the liabilities of CIBA Ltd. and that these being known liabilities of which the assessee had to bear the expenditure as per the agreement - HELD THAT:- The recovery of the debt is a right transferred along with the numerous other rights comprising the subject of the transfer. If the law permits the transferor to treat the whole or part of the debt as irrecoverable and to claim a deduction on that account, the same right should be recognised in the transferee. It is merely an incident flowing from the transfer of the business, together with its assets and liabilities, from the previous owner to the transferee. It is a right which should, on a proper appreciation of all that is implied in the transfer of a business, be regarded as belonging to the new owner - See T. Veerbhadra Rao case [1985 (7) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1841
Exemption u/s 11 - rejection of application for registration u/s 12A - assessee failed to produce necessary details and documents about objects of the trust and genuineness of the activity - HELD THAT:- The activities of the trust have to be considered if such registration is sought much after the formation of trust or after expiry of the earlier registration granted in favour of the trust.
The Hon’ble High Court in case of Meenakshi Amma Endowment Trust [2010 (11) TMI 853 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has observed that if the assessee is seeking immediately after formation then, there is no provision under the Act for seeking such registration. If assessee satisfies the condition as required for registration u/s 12A. Further, the CIT(E) has not pointed out anything against objects of the assessee being not charitable in nature. Therefore, we direct the CIT(E) to grant registration u/s 12A to the assessee.
Recognition u/s 80G - CIT(E) has rejected the application of the assessee by giving reference of the order whereby application for registration u/s 12A was rejected - In view of our finding that registration u/s 12A, assessee is entitled for registration u/s 80G of the Act as well.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1840
Disallowance of expenses - assessee did not carry out any business during the year - HELD THAT:- Unless there is some material on record to show that the assessee has completely abandoned the business. There is no finding by any of the authorities below that there was a cessation of business. It is not the case, as has been stated by the AO, that the assessee is claiming deduction of business expenses from rental income. The expenses incurred by the assessee are business expenses and just because there is no business income during the relevant period, such deductions cannot be declined. The depreciation is not in respect of the assets rented out either. The assessee is incurring is a business loss and thats all that matters. Whatever be the consequences of such losses on assessee’s ultimate tax liability does not govern the question whether deduction for expenses could be allowed or not - disallowances sustained by the CIT(A) infact deserve to be deleted - Decided in favour of assessee.
Unexplained credit - amount shown as deposit received from Pharmason Exports was added as unexplained credit by the Assessing Officer, for want of complete details and verifications - HELD THAT:- We are not inclined to uphold this addition. We have noted that the amount is received from the banking channel, it is duly referred to in the rent agreement itselfa copy of which was placed before us as well, and the assessee has regular dealing with the concern which has placed this security deposit. On these facts, this amount cannot be treated as unexplained credit. It stands duly explained. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete this addition as well.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1839
Additions u/s 40(a)(ia) - Whether disallowances on the basis of a deeming fiction, thereby causing great hardships to various tax payers even in some genuine cases? - HELD THAT:- Assessee should be provided with full opportunity to explain its case, before final tax liability is determined against it applying such deeming provisions. It is noted that second proviso was inserted to section 40(a)(ia) to mitigate hardships of the tax payers. The said proviso has been inserted to avoid the unintended consequences created by section 40(a)(ia). Under these circumstances, its benefit should be given to all the assessee irrespective to the fact that at what stage their cases are pending. It is further worth noting that in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. [2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has discussed this entire issue at length, and held that second proviso is declaratory and curative and has retrospective effect from 1st April 2005. In view of this major legal development, we find that the assessee deserves another opportunity.
We send this issue back to the file of AO with the direction that he shall exercise his requisite powers under the law to call for requisite information from the concerned payees. The assessee shall also extend full cooperation to the AO by furnishing all the documents and details in the form of names and address, PAN nos. place of assessment and confirmations etc., to the extent as feasible for the assessee. Needless to add, the AO shall give adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, these grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.
Prior period expenses - HELD THAT:- We find that the claim of the assessee should not have been denied in this manner by the lower authorities. We send this issue back to the file of the AO to consider this claim after verification of requisite facts taking cognizance of the revised computation filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. Thus, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes.
Claim on account of contribution to PF and ESIC - HELD THAT:- As already held that the claim has been rightly allowed by the CIT(A), therefore, following our order as has been given in the asessee’s appeal, we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue, rejecting the grounds raised by the Revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1838
TP Adjustment - selection of MAM - appropriate method of accounting - whether the Profit Split Method (PSM) is the most “appropriate method’ when data is not available on the CUP method as most appropriate method - HELD THAT:- We find there are decisions to denounce for PSM and the choice is between the CUP and TNMM as the best appropriate method in matters of indenting international transactions. One of the decisions cited above also supports the CUP as the most appropriate method. We are of the opinion, in principle, we agree with the Ld Counsel’s argument that internal CUP is the most appropriate method in this kind of factual situation.
Percentage of commission in ALP studies - correctness of 5% as the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) in benchmarking the transactions with Associated Enterprise (AE) - HELD THAT:- Rate of 1.35% ( in the case of Cisco Systems [2011 (9) TMI 477 - ITAT, BANGALORE] and 1.49% [in the case of Hoganas India Private Limited vs. DCIT [2013 (9) TMI 369 - ITAT PUNE] have to be rejected considering the rates approved in the case of Sumitomo Corporation (2.26%) [2013 (12) TMI 594 - ITAT DELHI] and Bayer Material Science (5%) [2011 (12) TMI 393 - ITAT MUMBAI]. In our opinion, to remove the statistical error, if any, the average of these two comparables should be considered to arrive at the appropriate rate of ALP for benchmarking the impugned transactions. Accordingly, 3.63% should be appropriate rate to be adopted by the AO for calculating the adjustments to be made. Thus, we partly allow the relevant grounds of the assessee as the case may be. Accordingly, AO is directed to adopt 3.63% as appropriate rate of ALP for benchmarking the impugned transactions.
Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - effecting TDS on the payments made, which are actually the case of reimbursement of expenses - HELD THAT:- Such expenditure by way of reimbursement of salaries to Genius company do not attract TDS provisions and therefore, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) need not be invoked. It is nobody’s case that the payments in question are not in the reimbursement of the salary of the deputed personnel by the Genius. Considering the same, we delete addition on this account and allow the Ground no.2 raised by the assessee.
Addition @ 10% of the cost of consumables and expenses for want of bills - AO made addition out of operating and other expenses on ad-hoc basis - Revenue relied on the order of the AO / DRP and submitted that the onus is on the assessee to demonstrate the genuineness of the expenses when a claim is made u/s 37 - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that the decision of the DRP and the AO on this issue is fair and reasonable and the same does not call for any interference. Accordingly, these two grounds are dismissed.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1837
Assessment and clearance of imported goods - import of used tyres - HELD THAT:- Identical issue decided in the case of KADRI ENTERPRISE A PROPRIETOR CONCERN OF GULAM RASUL GULAM MUSTUFA SHAIKH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & 2 [2015 (11) TMI 677 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] where respondents are directed to forthwith permit assessment and clearance of the goods imported by the applicant - petitioner.
Situation being identical, in these petitions also, similar interim directions are issued subject to similar conditions as in the said order.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1836
Capital gain - right of possession of the flat was a legal right which had to be extinguished by not only a process of law but also substantial payment by the other party - Addition u/s 68 - adverse possession of the disputed flat - ‘protective assessment - assessee has transferred the sundry creditor liability which was arising as a result of settlement with Ms/ Percept Advertisement Ltd. to its capital account - HELD THAT:- Any profit or gain arising out of this transfer is, thus, liable to be assessed to tax under the head ‘capital gains’ as has been done by the AO. However, this capital gain is required to be computed for tax purpose in accordance with the computation provisions of Sec. 48 of the Act. It may, however, be clearly seen that there was no cost of acquisition of the right of possessions of the said disputed flat, as the assessee did not spend anything for obtaining the said possession. Hence, the mechanism for Computation of capital gain with reference to ‘cost of acquisition’ of the asset transferred cleaerlyfails. The ultimate result is, thus, that the above mentioned ‘capital gains’ is not exigible to income tax, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Srinivasa Setty [1981 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] and PNB FINANCE LTD. [2008 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT]
In the present case, assessee was having adverse charge on the property and charge of tax on such transaction has nowhere been definite under the Act. Therefore, we are holding that this transaction out of purview of tax. In our considered view, we reverse the orders of authorities below and delete the addition made by Assessing Officer - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1835
Addition treating seized documents as "dumb document" - addition of undisclosed purchases and investments and also undisclosed expenditure and investment - HELD THAT:- We find from the facts of the case as well from the remand report of the AO, who has simply mentioned that the relevant document has been seized from the custody of the assessee and hence, the assessee is obliged to explain the seized document properly. Further, the AO in its remand report has mentioned that no clear cut explanation has been furnished. In this connection the CIT(A) sought certain clarifications from the AO relating to the remand report furnished by him.
A.O. vide his letter dated 2l.12.2011 responded to this letter by more or less reiterating the facts stated in the earlier remand report dated 29.3.201l. However, he remained silent about my query as to whether any statement of the assessee has been recorded regarding the contents of the seized documents BRI/20 Page-7 during the course of search or during the course of post search investigation which leads me to presume that no such statement was recorded regarding the contents of this seized document
We are of the view that page no. 7 of BRI-20 is a dumb document and particularly one of the director of the assessee company Shri Subrata Banik was deposed during the course of search on 07.11.2006 but no question about this document was asked, which implies that this page was not considered as important and even after search no questions were asked about the narrations or entries. In view of the above, we confirm the order of CIT(A) and both the issues of revenue's appeal are dismissed.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1834
Release of seized vehicle - seizure of vehicle on the allegation that it was used for illegal transportation of sand and that he has made an application, dated 01.12.2015, to respondent No.2, who is the competent authority, for release of the seized vehicle - petitioner’s grievance is that no action has been taken by respondent No.2 on his application so far - HELD THAT:- It is appropriate that respondent No.2 considers release of the seized vehicle. Since the petitioner has already submitted his application, dated 01.12.2015, to the said respondent, he is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders as per the aforementioned G.Os. for release of the seized vehicle within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1833
Accrual of income - Accrued interest on loans classified as “Non-performing Assets” - Tribunal deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- As in THE URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED [2014 (10) TMI 740 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] a Division Bench of this Court has answered the substantial questions of law in favour of the Assessee by following the earlier judgment in the case CANFIN HOMES LTD. [2011 (8) TMI 178 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. - Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1832
Exemption u/s 11 - corpus fund received - AO noted that all the seven persons denied having given any donation to the assessee thus addition proposed u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- As held in the case of CIT Vs P.K.Noorjahan [1997 (1) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] the addition cannot be made by AO just for the sake of making addition - donation received from the persons who were not called and the persons who were called and accepted the fact of giving donation, cannot be said to be not genuine. As regards the persons who had come and denied before the Assessing Officer the fact of giving donation, we observe that certain fallacies were pointed out by the assessee before the lower authorities, which have not been dealt with by either the Assessing Officer or the learned CIT (Appeals). Further, cross examination of these persons was specifically asked by the assessee, which was not provided to it. In this view, the addition even on these accounts cannot be made.
The addition on account of corpus donation in the present case, even if sustained, would go to increase the income of the assessee. Even if the corpus donation, which is held to be bogus, amounting to ₹ 1 crore, will, at best go to increase the income of the assessee. The receipts will become ₹ 8,16,18,794/- and the application being ₹ 21,51,18,322/-, is in any case more than 85% of the receipts. Therefore, the assessee will get the exemption under section 11 of the Act even on this count. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1831
Condonation of delay of 60 days in filing of appeal - appellant received the notice for hearing of condonation application, but on 28-10-2013, he did not appear and the appeal was dismissed in default - appellant applied for restoration of appeal on the ground that notice was received by his untrained staff, who did not inform him about the date of hearing on 28-10-2013 - HELD THAT:- The Court should endeavour to decide the appeal on merit, instead of dismissing it on technical ground and for any pardonable lapse on the part of party, cost can be imposed. We, therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, set aside the impugned order and direct the Tribunal to restore the appeal on a cost of ₹ 5000/-.
The appellant shall now appear before the Tribunal on 21-12-2015 - Appeal allowed.
........
|
9911796707
