|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 994 Records
-
2013 (4) TMI 680
Sales tax on spare parts - Whether no sale involved within the definition in section 2(1)(t) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 - whether the amount received by the assessee for supply of parts to the customers as a part of the warranty agreement was liable to tax?
Held that:- In the instant case, customers have purchased the motor vehicles from the manufacturers through the assessee. The sale price includes the price of warranty. The assessee has supplied spare parts, replaced defective parts and returned the defective parts to the manufacturer. Along with the defective parts, the assessee has raised a debit note in the name of the manufacturer. Thereafter the manufacturer has raised a credit note. The manufacturer has paid the assessee the price of the spare parts, which were replaced. If the said spare parts had been purchased in the open market, both of them have to pay sales tax. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in Mohd. Ekram Khan's case [2004 (7) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] the consideration paid by the manufacturer to the assessee by way of a credit note represents the sale price of the spare parts which are replaced and is liable to tax. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Hence, Revision is allowed.Order passed by the revisional authority is restored to file in its original.
-
2013 (4) TMI 679
Charges incurred prior to sale - whether form part of the sale price under section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act?
Held that:- In the instant case, arecanut cannot be sold as it is stocked in the godown. After the order is confirmed according to the speci fication of the purchaser, arecanut is removed from the godown and then according to his requirement it is filled into single or double gunny bags and then stitched by jute twine and transported to pick-up points to the transporters or to the railway station. All these acts are necessary to make goods to reach a deliverable state and the goods are sold. The title of goods passes when it is delivered to the transporter either at the pick-up points or at the railway station. Therefore, three authorities have rightly held that the handling charges and packing charges do not constitute cost of delivery, on the contrary, they form part of sale price. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in these petitions. Revision dismissed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 678
Cash discount allowed to the dealers and sub-dealers for promotion of goods - Non deduction of TDS - CIT (A) deleted the addition - Held that:- As goods had been sold to dealers/ sub-dealers at arm’s length on principal to principal basis and they were not acting on behalf of the assessee, therefore, there was no agency relationship with them. As per the policy of the assessee company, no commission was payable to the dealers / sub-dealers for promotion of the selling of the goods & this cash discount was for the prompt payment for the goods supplied to them as abetment of cost and not in the nature of commission, therefore provisions of section 194H are not applicable. In favour of assessee.
Interest invested on capital work in progress out of its interest bearing funds - disallowance as the capital work in progress has not been put to use by the assessee for its business - CIT (A) deleted the addition - Held that:- There was an opening balance at the beginning of the year under the head ‘capital work in progress’. Further as per the audited accounts of the assessee, there was no closing balance under the head ‘capital work in progress’. This shows that the work was completed during the relevant year & assets were ready for use or used for the business purposes during the year. Since there was nothing under the head ‘capital work in progress’, therefore, there is no question of establishing the nexus between the borrowed fund and the investment made - order of the CIT (A)sustained. In favour of assessee.
Disallowance of un-vouched expenses under the sub-head leakage and wastage - CIT (A) deleted the addition - Held that:- CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition as these leakages and wastages debited in the books of account are part and parcel of manufacturing activity of the assessee. In favour of assessee.
-
2013 (4) TMI 677
Re opening of assessment - evasion of tax on the short terms capital gain arising in its hand on sale of land - as per AO Actual sale deeds executed by the society in favour of other signatories to the MOU was only a device to avoid liability to pay tax on short term capital gain - Petitioner had filed return of income for the said assessment year 2005-06 which was accepted without scrutiny - Held that:- Merely because an assessment was not previously framed after scrutiny, would not give unlimited right to the AO to reopen by merely issuing a notice without valid reasons. As decided in Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M. Gopalan, Dy. CIT [2012 (9) TMI 16 - Gujarat High Court] referring to Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (2007 (5) TMI 197 - SUPREME Court) it is well settled that absence of notice under section 143(2) within the time permitted, scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) cannot be framed. However, merely because no such notice was issued, to contend that the assessment cannot be reopened, is not backed by any statutory provisions.
Thus AO has committed a grave error in issuing impugned notice as petitioner had first entered into MOU to form a consortium of different entities to bid for a large piece of land which would require sizable investment & thereupon, entered into an agreement to sale with the society. Ultimately, as per the terms of the agreement and the understanding between the petitioner and other signatories to the MOU at the instance of the petitioner, the society entered into a separate sale deeds in favour of various parties. Thus failure to see how the revenue can contend that under such circumstances, there was escapement of income under the head of short term capital gain.
Merely because the petitioner entered into an agreement with the said society which agreement contained a clause that the final sale deed would be executed in favour of such other persons as the petitioner may indicate, by itself cannot give rise to a presumption that the land in question stood transferred in favour of the petitioner on the date of such agreement as contended by the revenue.
The society had not, by virtue of agreement dated 08.04.2004, transferred the property in favour of the petitioner. The society had only agreed to do so on certain terms and conditions. Most important condition being that of the purchaser paying remaining purchase price without which the sale could never be completed. In the meantime the possession of the land was retained by the society. An agreement to sale without there being anything more,obviously cannot be equated with transfer of property. Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act also enforces this view. Reassessment notice quashed. In favour of assessee.
-
2013 (4) TMI 676
Sales Tax – section 44 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act
The respondent was assessed to tax in relation to the item drift eliminator under the provisions of M. P. General Sales Tax. The A.O. while making the assessment applied the rate of 12% applicable to residuary items and accordingly framed the assessment. Respondent submitted that the item in question is in fact "iron and steel" and hence liable to be taxed accordingly at the rate of 4% in place of 12% as wrongly assessed by the assessing officer under the residuary clause of the Schedule. Respondent filed various appeals to the authorities and succeeded in the same. Department aggrieved by the order file the appeal before the High Court.
Since none appeared for the respondent/assessee despite repeated notices sent to them in last more than 15 years. Court do not wish to keep this reference pending anymore.
Held that:- Having heard the learned counsel for the State and on perusal of the record of the case (statement of case), court are inclined to answer the referred question in negative i.e. against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
2013 (4) TMI 675
Detention orders - transit pass not shown by assessee - Held that:- As per Section 70(2) of TNVAT Act, 2006 petitioner has to necessarily obtain a transit pass in the prescribed form and in the prescribed manner, thus the plea of the petitioner that the Circular Act Cell-IV/69980/2000 dated 23.11.2000 issued by Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai stating no transit pass is required will apply, does not merit consideration as it will have no force in law after coming into force of the 2006 Act. Therefore, the above said plea is rejected.
However, an opportunity is given to the petitioner to approach the competent authority for release of goods in terms of Section 67(4) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 on payment of tax. If the petitioner pays the tax as required under Section 67(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, the authority is bound to release the goods forthwith.
Composition of offence - A detailed procedure has been prescribed for composition and an opportunity should be given before passing an order under Section 72 of the TNVAT Act, 2006. The said section prescribes that an order should be passed on composition either way on merits and the petitioner is entitled to pursue the same on merits, if aggrieved. Thus composition of the offence, as per notice issued, it has to be dealt with independently.
-
2013 (4) TMI 674
Belated return - non-compliance of Rule 98(1) on the part of the petitioner rendering him liable for interest - KVAT Act - Held that:- As from Ext.P3 endorsement made by the authorised signatory of ICICI Bank, it is seen that the cheques presented by the petitioner could have been collected in any location of ICICI Bank including at Manjeri. Therefore, when the cheque was presented by the 1st respondent to SBT, Manjeri, its Bank, the SBT could have locally collected the cheque and avoided any delay in realising the amount. On the other hand, they chose to send it to Kottayam for encashment and it was in that process the delay has occurred.
Thus once payment has been made as above, for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, if realization has been delayed, either for reasons which are attributable to the respondents or the Bank, the dealer cannot be made liable on the basis that on account of the delay in realising the tax due, delay has occurred.
If the payment made by the petitioner was in any manner defective, the 1st respondent had an obligation to issue demand notice,as per Rule 22(7) which requirement has not been complied with. Secondly, Rule 98 at the relevant time provided that the cheques shall be of a Bank which is a member of the clearing house situated within the jurisdiction of the authority before whom it is presented and petitioner has made available SRO 318/05 issued under Section 3(3) of the KVAT Act, which show that while the headquarters of the 1st respondent is at Malappuram, his functional jurisdiction extended to functions assigned by the Commissioner. Thus the functional jurisdiction of the 1st respondent is not confined to Manjeri alone, going by the terms of the SRO. It is apparently on account of the above vagueness in the matter that the expression "within the jurisdiction" occurring in Rule 98 was substituted with the expression "in the headquarters" by SRO 7/08 dated 31/2/07 - non-compliance of Rule 98(1) not proved.
-
2013 (4) TMI 673
Service tax/interest/penalty - Business Auxiliary Service - Allegation is that the appellants have been authorized by the government or NHAI to collect toll charges on the use of the highways/roads constructed by them and, therefore, they have rendered a service and liable to pay tax.
Held that- Appellants have undertaken the construction of roads. To finance/compensate for the cost of construction, the contractors have been permitted by the Government/NHAI to collect toll charges from the users of these roads. Thus the toll charges have been collected by the appellants on their own account. If that be so, they cannot be said to have rendered any 'Business Auxiliary Service'. Thus, we are of the considered view that the activity of the appellant in construction of roads on BOT basis is not leviable to service tax either under commercial or industrial construction service, works contract service, maintenance, management or repair of immovable property service or under Business Auxiliary Service. Accordingly, the impugned orders is set aside.
-
2013 (4) TMI 672
Denial of abetment in terms of Notification No. 32/2004-ST - As per revenue transporters have not filed the requisite certificate and have not stamped the individual GRs, certifying that no credit stand availed by them on GTA services - Held that:- In the case of Arani Agro Oil Industries Ltd. vs. CC, Visakhapatnam in [2011 (1) TMI 715] has observed that GTA service provider is not required to furnish evidence of non-availment of Cenvat scheme to qualify the benefit of Notification No. 32/2004-ST in as much as there is no such conditions in the notification for making declaration on each consignment note. In any view of the matter, we note that in the present case such certificates were produced by the GTA service provider. However, the same do not accepted by the lower authorities. Thus, the impugned orders is set aside and allow both the appeals with consequential relief to the appellant.
-
2013 (4) TMI 671
Availment of credit – Revenue submitted that services rendered to the residential complex is not in relation to the manufacturing or output services and directing the appellant to reverse the credit availed by them – Appellant contention the same was hit by limitation.
Held that - Contentions raised by the appellant that the entire case is hit by limitation is correct. It is on record that the appellant has been filing regularly returns during the relevant period, wherein they have shown the availment of Cenvat credit. I find that there is nothing on record to show that appellant had availed Cenvat credit which was not due to them during the relevant period. At the same time, during the material period, there were various decisions which were in favour of the assessee as regards the Cenvat credit of the service tax paid by the service provider at the residential colony. Appellant could be under bonafide belief to avail the Cenvat credit which cannot be questioned and such a bonafide belief prompted the appellant to avail Cenvat credit. Thus, the demanding the same is held to be hit by limitation.
-
2013 (4) TMI 670
Waiver of penalty - Invocation of section 80 – As per revenue appellant has not discharged service tax liability on the commission amount reimbursed by Vodafone to them. - adjudicating authority, after confirming the demand and appropriating the amounts paid by the appellant, dropped the proceeding of imposition of penalty by invoking the provisions of Section 80 - Held that - Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Sunitha Shetty [2009 (9) TMI 1],and Tanaton Vision [2012 (12) TMI 233] clearly lay down the proposition that once the adjudicating authority has exercised his discretion for setting aside the penalty under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, that attains finality. - Thus, the impugned order is set-aside. appeal is allowed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 669
Sole selling agent - Change in percentage of rate of commission - Demand of tax - As per appellant the demand of tax on the presumption that they received commission for the month of March 2010 is totally wrong - Held that:- In my considered view, the matter is required to be examined by the lower authority on this issue. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the original authority to consider the submission of the appellant in this issue amongst other and to pass order in accordance with law.
-
2013 (4) TMI 668
Assessment of income - when a business can be said to have been set-up? - whether act of depositing earnest money while participating in the tender floated by the official liquidator of the Karnataka High Court and the act of borrowing monies from the DLF Ltd. for the purpose can be construed as acts constituting setting-up of the business of real estate development? - Held that:- The actual acquisition of the land may be a first step in the commencement of the business, but section 3 of the Act does not speak of commencement of the business, it speaks only of setting-up of the business. When the assessee in the present case was in a position to apply for the tender, borrowed money for interest albeit from its holding company and deposited the same with NGEF Ltd. on the same day, it shows that the assessee's business had been set-up and it was ready to commence business.
The revenue contention that till the land is acquired, the business is not set-up is not acceptable as an assessee may not be successful in acquiring land for long period of time though he is ready to commence his business in real estate, and that would result in the expenses incurred by him throughout that period not being computed as a loss under the head “business” on the ground that he is yet to set-up his business. The other argument for the revenue that the tax auditors of the assessee have themselves pointed out that the assessee is yet to commence its business is also irrelevant because of the distinction between the commencement of the business and setting-up of the same.
Under section 260A an appeal lies to the High Court only on a substantial question of law. The finding of the Tribunal in the present case is a finding of fact and it cannot be said that the finding was without any basis or material. Appeal dismissed - no substantial question of law arises. Against revenue
-
2013 (4) TMI 666
Sale of paintings - personal effect - whether be treated as capital asset for the computation of computed the capital gains - Tribunal held that that the paintings would be personal effects and sale of the same would not attract the capital gains - Held that:- The relevant assessment year in the present case is 2005 -2006 and during such assessment year, the definition of capital asset found under Section 2(14) does not specifically exclude paintings from the purview of personal effects.
The paintings were excluded from the purview of personal effects and consequently included as one of the capital asset under Section 2(14) only in pursuant to the amendment made under the Finance Act 2007 that too with effect from 1.4.2008, the above said amendment was not made with any retrospective effect.
Thus when the amendment itself was brought in with prospective effect, the same cannot be applied retrospectively. Moreover, it being a taxing liability, the same cannot be applied retrospectively as held in Guffic Chem P. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2011 (3) TMI 6 - Supreme Court) - no merits in the appeal. Against revenue.
-
2013 (4) TMI 665
Validity of assessments u/s.153C - search and seizure operation u/s.132 covering the residential premises as well as business premises of assessee - appellant challenged the proceeding initiated u/s.153C on the ground that no satisfaction was recorded by the A.O. of case in which a search conducted - Held that:- For initiating proceeding u/s.153C, it is not necessary that these books of account should be incriminating. When books of account of the appellant found and seized from the search place of the partner of the firm, the A.O. is fully empowered to initiate proceeding u/s. 153C against the firm i.e. other person. The A.O. of the both partners as well as firm was same therefore, no separate satisfaction is required to be recorded as held in case of CIT v. Panchajanyam Management Agencies & Services [2010 (11) TMI 366 - Kerala High Court]. In assessee's case, in all the years, no scrutiny assessment has been made by the A.O. The return of the appellant had been process u/s. 143 (1) (a) and it was held by in case of Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007 (5) TMI 197 - SUPREME Court] intimation u/s.143(1)(a) cannot be treated to be an order of assessment and there being no assessment u/s.143(1)(a). The Section 153D has been amended w.e.f. 01.06.2007 whereas the A.O. has passed orders u/s. 153C in all the years on 24/03/2006. Thus, no approval of JCIT/ACIT is required. Thus CIT(A) was right in confirming the action of the A.O. u/s.153 - Against assessee.
Addition of capital gain u/s. 45(4) relying on CIT v. A.N. Naik Associates [2003 (7) TMI 46 - BOMBAY High Court] - Held that:- As per Section 2(47) the distribution of capital assets that dissolution of a firm would be regarded as transfer. It is now clear that when the assets are transferred to a partner that falls within the expression 'otherwise' and the rights of the other partners in those assets of the partnership firm extinguished. In appellant's case, the land and building had been revalued as against book value and credited the amount on account of revaluation in the respective partners' capital account in their ratio in the firm. The retiring partner paying his share. As decided in Suvardhan v CIT [2006 (8) TMI 142 - KARNATAKA High Court] any distribution of capital assets and dissolution of firm was chargeable tax as the income of the firm in the light of the fact that a transfer had taken place. In this case, one partner retired and two were continue in the partnership firm. The Court held that provisions of Section 45(4) is applicable as it amounts to transfer. Hence, capital gain is applicable - the assessee's case is fully covered u/s. 45(4) - Against assessee.
Disallowance of salary and wages - Held that:- Nothing incriminating documents for inflating on wages were found, whatever found incriminating has been considered in case of partner who had disclosed the additional income under this head. A.O. made addition on the basis of presumption that in case of firm also such types of inflation on wages had been made. But the burden on the revenue to prove that wages expenses had been inflated by the appellant which has not been discharged by bringing out any evidence on record. Thus the order of the CIT(A) reversed. The assessee's appeal on this ground is allowed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 664
Sale of shares - Business income v/s Long Term Capital Gain - Held that:- The valuation of the investment in shares is reflected in the balance sheet at cost and not as cost / market value whichever is lower. Furthermore, all the shares which have been sold were delivery based and the shares have been held for the period ranging between few months to more than 3 years by the assessee. Thus, the assessee has only made investment in equity shares and not in stock in trade, this is depicted and identifiable and the books of accounts in this regard. As the magnitude of the transactions in the investment account in comparison to the turnover disclosed trading account were negligible, LTCG has arisen on account of sale of 10000 shares in Ind Swift ltd. forming only 0.28% of the total holding and all these shares have been transferred only through one transaction and shares of Micro Tech. have been transferred through 3 transactions. In case of shares of paramount the shares have been sold through total 9 transactions between 3.4.06 to 28.4.06. Thus CIT(A) has rightly concluded that number of transactions are not large enough and neither they are frequent to hold that there has been any intention on part of the of the assessee to indulge into business of trading in shares & has earned substantial dividend income of Rs. 20,14,851/- during the year which is indication of the assessee's intention of investment in shares for earning dividend income. See C.I.T. vs. Rohit Anand (2010 (8) TMI 232 - Delhi High Court) wherein said that it is relevant to see the intention of the assessee at the time of making of investment so as to determine whether the transactions was for dealing in shares or making investment for earning dividend - No infirmity in the conclusion that profit arisen on sale of shares held as investment by the assessee deserves to be assessed as short term capital gain and long term capital gain as disclosed by the assessee. Against revenue.
Addition u/s.14A by applying Rule 8D - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Addition made by the AO is not sustainable as Rule 8D is not applicable for asstt. year 2007-08. The interest related to loan of Rs. 2.5 crore taken by the assessee from M/s Cholamandalam Investment during the previous financial year 2005-06. The CIT(A) gave a finding that this has been used for the purpose of business and not for making any investment in shares. This was substantiated by the assessee through various details & opined that assessee had sufficient source of its own through which investment in shares have been made and these sources are interest free funds - No infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) - Against revenue.
-
2013 (4) TMI 663
Disallowance of warranty provision which are contingent and unascertained liability - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance - Held that:- Assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of air conditioners, compressors etc. and gives a free of cost repair and replacement warranty as per the agreed terms and conditions with the customers for a minimum period of one year at the time of sale. The provision for warranty has been recognized based on past warranty trends, warranty claims received during the year and the unspent provision for warranty for prior years.
Thus, agree with the CIT(A) that the treatment of warranty provision is in consonance with accepted principles of commercial practice and accountancy followed year after year consistently. It is undisputed that the warranty clause is a part of the sales document and imposes a liability upon the assessee to discharge its obligations under that clause for the period of warranty. As decided in Rotark Controls India P Ltd. vs. C.I.T. [2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] & C.I.T. vs. Majestic Auto Ltd. (2006 (7) TMI 568 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT) has affirmed that the provision for warranty claims and free services charges were allowable as deduction on the facts that quantification of warranty claim and liability of free services has been made on scientific basis. In favour of assessee.
-
2013 (4) TMI 662
Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of deduction u/s 54F, disallowance on 60% of car insurance and depreciation, disallowance of business promotion expenses, disallowance on 'discount' bills and disallowance on generator expenses and depreciation thereon - Held that:- A perusal of the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) by the AO demonstrates that the penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) was not issued related to the addition pertaining to the disallowance of claim of exemption from capital gain. The notice has been issued only on concealment of particulars of income of Rs.40823 which is disallowance of generator expense and depreciation thereon. Thus, reading of assessment order along with the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) and reply filed by the assessee clearly demonstrates that the AO had no intention to levy penalty during the course of assessment proceedings on this particular issue of Section 54F even by reading section 271(1B). Thus,to conclude no satisfaction as required by law has been recorded by AO during the assessment proceedings, hence, imposition of penalty is bad in law.
As from the computation that the land at Haridwar was sold on 7.5.2004 (A.Y. 2005-06) and exemption u/s 54F was claimed. The period of three (3) years stipulated under the Act expires on 7.5.2007 related to AY 2008-09. Technically and legally, the assessee has time to invest on or before 7.5.2007. Meaning thereby that section 54F(3) cannot legally be invoked for AY 2007-08. Thus, there is no concealment by the assessee on account of non-declaration of the said income in this assessment year. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be accepted & penalty order is set aside. In favour of assessee.
-
2013 (4) TMI 661
Export incentives Duty Drawback/DEPB u/s 80lB - denial of claim placing reliance on Liberty India vs. CIT [2006 (9) TMI 487 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] - Held that:- The judgment of Liberty India has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (2009 (8) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT) considering the ratio of its own judgment in the case of Sterling Foods (1999 (4) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court), Ritesh Inds. Ltd. (2004 (9) TMI 36 - DELHI High Court) and CIT vs Lakhwinder Singh (2007 (7) TMI 302 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT) to held that section 80-IB provides for allowing a deduction in respect of profits and gains derived from the eligible business. Import of the words "derived from" is narrower as compared to that of the words "attributable". Thus DEPB/Duty Drawback benefits did not form part of net profit of eligible industrial undertaking for the purposes of section 80-I/80-IA/80-IB - in favour of the revenue.
Whether disclosures of income can be said to be derived from business for the purposes of computation of deduction u/s 80-IB - assessee voluntarily surrendered additional income of Rs.15 lakh for taxation on account of difference in stock, cash and unexplained investment in factory building - Held that:- Amount of surrender was due to valuation difference as accepted by AO and it was specifically stated that this was not unexplained investment u/s 69. A bare perusal of the assessment order shows that it was on estimate basis on GP rate of earlier years. It is nothing but business profit, hence it was derived from business and deduction u/s 80-IB should be granted on the same. In favour of assessee.
Additions made u/s 69 related to the difference in cash and undisclosed income - Held that:- The assessee has not explained as to how these unexplained items have a nexus with the business of the assessee. As the assessee has not discharged the burden of proof that these items were received from business, the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80-IB. In favour of the revenue.
-
2013 (4) TMI 660
Assessability of income pertaining to the proprietorship concern(SI)- whether should be assessed as the income of the late Shri S.P.Goyal or in the hands of the assessee [second wife of Shri S.P.Goyal] - Held that:- Once the issue about assessability of income pertaining to the said proprietorship concern SI in the hands of late Shri S.P. Goyal stands concluded by ITAT's directions in 2007 (9) TMI 533 - ITAT DELHI, no addition in respect of any income attributable to SI can be made in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order of CIT(A), which is passed without considering the assessee's legal stand in this behalf and without properly appreciating the ITAT's order and confirming the additions again, is without justification and cannot be sustained. The assessing officer in the second round should not have made the additions in the first place in the hands of the assessee and should have rightly been made in the hands of late Shri S.P. Goyal, as directed by the ITAT. Thus, the assessing officer's order also runs contrary to the findings of the ITAT. In favour of assessee.
............
|
