|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 783 Records
-
2017 (3) TMI 1712 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition under peak credit available with the Appellant by treating the same as non-genuine - Held that:- Latest judgement passed in the case of “H. R. Mehta versus ACIT” Mumbai (2016 (7) TMI 273 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) wherein held that the assessing officer should have provided the assessee materials used against him apart from providing him an opportunity to cross examine deponent’s whose statements were relied upon.
Admittedly in this case no material was provided by the AO to the assessee which was used against him and nor any opportunity to cross examination was provided. Since we have already concluded that the purchases made by the assessee could not be termed as bogus therefore peak credit method applied by the AO in the case of assessee is also not sustainable moreover, the theory of peak credit even otherwise does not apply to the transactions which are already appearing in the books of accounts and not rejected by the assessing officer. The theory of peak credit applied by the assessing officer and confirmed by the CIT (A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Thus in the above circumstances we hold that the additions made by AO and sustained by CIT (A) are liable to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1710 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition invoking the provisions of section 69C by treating the purchase are non-genuine - assessee failed to produce the parties for verification and also failed to establish the genuineness of the purchases however claimed to make the payment to the parties through cheques - Held that:- Merely the name of the parties to whom the transaction was done by the assessee have been reflected in the official website of the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra www.mahavat.gov.in. is not itself to prove the sufficient case in connection with the bogus purchase against the assessee. Moreover, the appellant has shown the Gross Profit and Net Profit which were duly accepted by the Assessing Officer, therefore in absence of the rejection of any book resulted into such huge addition of ₹ 4,99,27,664/- was not tenable in the eyes of law.
CIT(A) while deciding the matter of controversy has also placed reliance upon the law settled by in the case of M/s.Nikunj EXIMP Pvt. Ltd. (2013 (1) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT). CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy after considering the case of the assessee from every angle. Nothing came into the notice that the finding of the CIT(A) is required to be interfere with. In view of the discussion made above we are of the view that the CIT(A) has passed the order judiciously and correctly which does not require to be interfere with at this appellate stage. - Decided against revenue.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1709 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Statement made during search and seizure - Non considering the surrendered undisclosed income for the purpose of tax on the basis of material on record - Held that:- Learned Counsel for appellant could not dispute that statement recorded during search and seizure could have been explained subsequently and also that after examining entire material on record actual concealment apparent from record was much less than what was disclosed by Assessee, and upheld by CIT(A) and Tribunal.
Looking to legal position that Assessee was entitled to explain his statement made during search and seizure operation, we find no reason to disagree with the view recorded by CIT(A) and Tribunal and answer aforesaid question against Revenue and in favour of Assessee.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1706 - ITAT DELHI
Reopening u/s. 148/147 - notice u/s. 148 was issued merely at the behest of Investigation Wing - AO has not made any independent enquiry - Held that:- Exactly the similar and identical to the issue involved in the present appeal and is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi Signatures Hotels (P) Ltd. (2011 (7) TMI 361 - DELHI HIGH COURT). Hence, respectfully following decide the legal issue in dispute in favor of the Assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1705 - ITAT BANGALORE
Invalid notice u/s 143(2) - notice was issued pursuant to the original return of income and not on the basis of the revised return of income dated 12/12/2012 - Held that:- Argument of the assessee is not correct as there is no status to revised return in the eye of law merely to rectify any omission or wrong statement made in the original return. It is clear from the notice u/s 143(2) that the AO noted down the filing of revised return on 12/12/2012, therefore, it cannot be said that notice was issued without considering the revised return. In our view, this contention of the assessee is baseless and is required to be dismissed.
Reasoning given by CIT(A) is the correct reasoning as the notice was issued by the AO within a period of limitation and there is no delay in issuing notice. Accordingly, the ground No.1 is decided against the assessee.
Depreciation claim - Revaluation of assets as getting converted into a private limited company - Held that:- The erstwhile company ceases to exist and a new company comes into existence. In the case on hand also, on account of conversion, the erstwhile partnership firm ceased to exist while the company has come into existence. Therefore, the assets come to vest in the hands of the company and there is no cost of assets to the company on such vesting. When the transaction itself has been treated to be not a transfer, but is akin to succession, in our opinion the 5th proviso to sub-clause (ii) of sec. 36(1) applies and the depreciation has to be calculated as if there is no transfer.
Further, as there is no transfer, there is no cost to the assessee. Depreciation is allowable on the WDV of the asset and WDV has been defined u/s 43(6) to mean in the case of assets acquired in the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee. As actual cost to the assessee was ‘Nil’, the WD value of the assets in the hands of the predecessor firm shall be considered for the allowance of depreciation.
Year of assessment - Sub-sec(6) of sec. 43 defines ‘Written Down Value’ and it provides for both the acquisition of assets during the relevant previous year and acquisition of assets before the relevant previous year and both the clauses mention ‘actual cost to the assessee’. In the second circumstance i.e where the assets are acquired before the previous year as in the case of the assessee before us, the WDV shall be the actual cost to the assessee less all depreciation actually allowed to him under the Income-tax Act. Therefore, it is clear that the claim of depreciation can be examined even in the assessments years subsequent to the assessment year in which the succession has taken place.
CIT-A has not invoked the provisions of Explanation 3 to sec. 43(1) of the IT Act but has only justified the action of the AO in questioning the claim of depreciation by citing the provision of sec. 43(1) and Explanation 3 thereof. - Decided against assessee
-
2017 (3) TMI 1704 - ITAT BANGALORE
TPA - Comparable selection criteria - Held that:- The assessee is a captive service provider and has been set up as a captive off shore software development centre for catering to the needs of the Lifesize group. Lifesize India is responsible for the research, software development and support services for Lifesize Inc’s products and services thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1699 - ITAT CHENNAI
Exigibility to tax in law of the ‘non-compete fees’ arising to the assessee - whether treated as profit in lieu of salary - Held that:- Given the huge outlay of capital and business risk involved in a new business, highly improbable for a person to, at an advanced stage of his life, start a new venture, risking both, the regular income that he could otherwise fetch by self-employment or by service, as he actually does by becoming a director (in CABL, i.e., the payer company), as well as his savings generated over the years.
Why, the very fact that all such persons, whose cases stand referred to in this order, were directors and majority shareholders in the old company, were paid a ‘non compete fee’ and later co-opted as directors, itself indicates the same to be a part of a plan, a pre-mediated transaction, and integral to the takeover of the business of Citadel Fine Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. The same could be a part of the business restructuring as well, though the claim cannot be lightly made, nor can, like-wise, the Revenue’s claim of the impugned sum being profit-in-lieu of salary, assessable u/s. 15 r/w s. 17(3), be brushed aside so (lightly), particularly in this context. The assessee shall have to bring material or evidence on record to substantiate/prove his claims, which can only be decided on the basis of the facts borne out thereby, i.e., on the basis of given/proven facts.
CIT(A) shall then, where relevant, determine whether the assessee’s method of accounting, which is only for income from business and from other sources, regularly followed, is, as contended by him, ‘cash’, in which case the un-received sum of ₹ 500 lacs could be considered for its assessibility as income only on its receipt. Two, where not so, so that the assessee’s method of accounting, which has to be either cash or accrual, is indeed accrual, can the said amount be considered as accrued under the given facts and circumstances.
The matter, accordingly, as afore-stated, is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) – who was bound by the order by the tribunal in the first round, and whose directions shall continue to obtain, for a decision on merits, issuing definite finding of facts upon allowing the parties opportunity to represent their case before him.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1698 - ITAT CUTTACK
Levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - CIT-A treating the sale of investment in commodities as speculation income under the head “profits and gains from business/profession” and profit on sale of Mutual Fund as “business income” - Held that:- AO has stated that the purchase and sale of shares in commodity were made on the very same date without delivery. This finding of the Assessing Officer has not been controverted by the assessee by bringing any positive material on record. If the argument of the assessee is to be accepted that the assessee was an investor and not a trader, then no investor would sale the shares on the very same date of the purchase or within 2 to 3 days of the purchase. No good and justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A), which is hereby confirmed and the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Addition as agricultural income - Held that:- Assessee has brought no positive material on record to controvert the findings of the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A). No reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A), which is hereby confirmed and ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - Held that:- The facts of the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA’s. Emarld Meadows [2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SUPREME COURT] and, therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court squarely applies to the case of the assessee. Hence, respectfully following the same, cancel the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) and allow the ground of appeal of the assessee.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1697 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Applications for stay of demand - not being treated as an assessee in default in terms of Section 220(6) - Held that:- As the CIT(A) had almost concluded the hearing of the appeals (as informed by the petitioner), the deposit of 15% could be kept in abeyance. However, as the same is now denied by the Revenue making it a disputed issue, we see no reason to exercise our writ jurisdiction. Moreover, the order sheets annexed to affidavit dated 2nd March, 2017 is evidence of the adjournments granted on various occasion at the request of the petitioner and also filing of an additional ground on 31st January, 2017 which would further delay the proceedings. We see no reason in these facts to interfere in the present petition.
CIT(A) need not await for the deposit of tax as directed by the impugned orders dated 28th October, 2016 to decide the pending appeals before him for the Assessment year 2007-08., 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 and 2012-13. This for the reason that it is not a condition precedent that the disputed amounts be deposited before the appeal can be heard and disposed of by the CIT(A). However, it is clarified that the pending appeals before the CIT(A) would not by itself in any manner fetter the rights of the Revenue to adopt such proceedings as are available to it in law, to recover its taxes in terms of the impugned orders dated 28th October, 2016.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1696 - ITAT MUMBAI
Actuarial valuation - taxability u/s 44 - computation of income - transfer from Share Holders Account to Policy Holder’s Account - Tribunal holding that ‘surplus’ available both in Policy Holders Account and Share Holders Account is to be consolidated and only ‘net surplus’ is to be taxed as income from Insurance Business - taxing income of assessee arising from activity unconnected with insurance business (consequent set off loss) - Held that:- We find that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd. [2015 (7) TMI 972 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that “where assessee was carrying on life insurance business and Tribunal following a decision of Supreme Court, while determining assessee’s income under section 44, had taken into consideration total surplus as arrived at by actuarial valuation and further held that income from shareholders account was also to be taxed as a part of life insurance business, there was no substantial question of law arising for consideration”. Reference was made to the decision in LIC of India vs. CIT [1963 (12) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] wherein held that the Assessing Officer has no power to modify the account after actuarial valuation is done.
Income of assessee arising from activity unconnected with insurance business - determining actuarial valuation surplus from insurance business u/s 44 - Held that:-(i) amount set apart by insurance company towards solvency margin as per the direction given by IRDA is to be excluded while computing actuarial valuation surplus, and (ii) pension fund like Jeevan Suraksha Fund would continue to be governed by provisions of section 44 irrespective of the fact that income from such fund is exempted, or not and, therefore, even after insertion of section 10(23AAB), loss incurred from pension fund like Jeevan Suraksha Fund has to be excluded while determining actuarial valuation surplus from insurance business u/s 44 of the Act. See case of LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. [2011 (8) TMI 47 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - revenue appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1689 - ITAT DELHI
TPA - comparable selection - Held that:- The assessee company was engaged in providing data collection, web services, information research and related support services to its associated enterprises (AE), thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to deselected from final list.
Working capital adjustment - Held that:- In the case of the assessee company, the working capital adjustment has been allowed in assessment year 2008-09 and 2012-13 and there has been no change in the functionality, risk and profile of the assessee company from assessment year 2008-09 to 2012- 13. We do not find any reason why the working capital adjustment should not be allowed to the assessee, when it has been allowed in immediately preceding year. The Object of the entire comparability process is to reduce the difference between the comparables and the assessee company. The Tribunal, in various judgments allowed working capital adjustment to companies of ITES industries. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Demag Cranes and Component (India) Private Limited (2012 (1) TMI 60 - ITAT PUNE), we direct the TPO/AO to allow the working capital adjustments to the assessee. The ground of the appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1688 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Disallowance of commission and brokerage - allowable business expense u/s 37 - Held that:- The contentions which are raised by the department is required to be considered and the same has been considered at length. The basic contention is that the Tribunal while discussing the matter has observed that in the previous year the department itself has accepted it and was not challenged. Apart from that, the commission which has been paid was paid by account payee and the same was verified. The commission which has been paid from accounts was also verified by the department. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that books of account are not rejected and the same is accepted. Thus the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper and the first issue is required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.
Regarding Section 43B of the Act, in our opinion, in view of para 9 of the judgment of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ram Pistons & Rings Ltd. (2012 (2) TMI 349 - DELHI HIGH COURT), the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper and this issue is also required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.
As regards Section 80JJAA in our opinion, permanency is not there and increase is there. The Tribunal while considering the same has taken into consideration the provisions of that Section and rightly granted the benefit in favour of the assessee. Therefore that issue is also required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.
Regarding Section 43B of the Act, establishment and research is always for the purpose of benefit of the business. In that view of the matter, the said issue is also required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1686 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Grants receipt from the Govt. of NCT of Delhi for meeting revenue expenses, i.e. by way of ex-gratia payment upon voluntary retirement - Assessing Officer (AO) treated this receipt as income and sought to tax it - CIT(A)’s interpretation of the payable entry with respect to this was that it was an outstanding liability vis-a-vis Govt. of NCT of Delhi and the Pension Trust vis-a-vis the assessee - Held that:- We are in agreement with the conclusion as recorded by the first appellate authority that since the Government of Delhi, which is 100% owner of the assessee company, the employees who opted for VRS [Voluntary Retirement Scheme] were to be paid their dues for which approved provident fund did not have adequate/planned investment thus the government decided to provide long term capital loans of ₹ 35.90 crores to the assessee which was passed on to the Pension Fund Trust enabling the company to make payments to the employees. In view of the above noted factual matrix of the case on the issue we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the conclusion of the CIT(A) thus we uphold the same - no substantial question of law
-
2017 (3) TMI 1684 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Capital gain on transfer of converted shares - partnership firm - contention of Assessees that share were converted into stock in trade thus no capital gain - Held that:- Dismissed.
See order of date passed in THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, LUCKNOW VERSUS BIJAI KUMAR JAIN, S.K. JAIN, RAVI PRAKASH SINGH, RAJENDER SINGH, D.K. KADKADE, RAVI PRAKASH SINGH [2017 (5) TMI 300 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]
-
2017 (3) TMI 1682 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Disallowance under Section 14A - Held that:- Assessing Officer (AO) did not expressly record reasons for rejection of that figure and instead proceeded to disallow a sum in excess of ₹ 5,61,02,732/-. The DRP reduced this figure to ₹ 2,56,62,215/- which was ultimately rejected by the ITAT by placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Cheminvest Limited v. CIT-VI [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and ACB India Limited v. ACIT [2015 (4) TMI 224 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
This Court is of the opinion that since the ITAT has relied upon the judgments of this Court which have explained the scope of Section 14A in such circumstances, no question of law arises. The appeal is accordingly dismissed along with the pending applications.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1679 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Claim of commission and brokerage u/s 37 - Held that:- The contentions which are raised by the department is required to be considered and the same has been considered at length. The basic contention is that the Tribunal while discussing the matter has observed that in the previous year the department itself has accepted it and was not challenged. Apart from that, the commission which has been paid was paid by account payee and the same was verified. The commission which has been paid from accounts was also verified by the department. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that books of account are not rejected and the same is accepted. Thus the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper and the first issue is required to be answered in favour of the assesseee and against the department.
Sales tax incentive as a capital receipt - constructive payment for the purpose of section 43B - Held that:- For Section 43B of the Act, in our opinion, in view of para 9 of the judgment of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ram Pistons & Rings Ltd. (2008 (5) TMI 631 - DELHI HIGH COURT), the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper and this issue is also required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.
Section 80JJAA claim permanency is not there and increase is there. The Tribunal while considering the same has taken into consideration the provisions of that Section and rightly granted the benefit in favour of the assessee. Therefore that issue is also required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.
Regarding Section 43B of the Act, establishment and research is always for the purpose of benefit of the business. In that view of the matter, the said issue is also required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.
-
2017 (3) TMI 1678 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - approach the Court for challenging the reassessment proceedings - Held that:- Delhi High Court in the case of Samsung India Electronics P. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax & Ors. [2013 (11) TMI 820 - DELHI HIGH COURT], Asian Paint Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax & Anr. [2007 (1) TMI 159 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]; and Garden Finance Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2003 (10) TMI 17 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein all the three High Courts have held that after the assessing officer disposes of the objection filed to a notice under Section 147 by a speaking order, the Assessing Officer should give substantial time between 3 to 4 weeks to the petitioner or the assessee to approach the Court for challenging the reassessment proceedings on merit, may be in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and it is only thereafter that the reassessment proceeding should be concluded.
Taking note of all these circumstances and considering the submissions made in detail before us, we find that its a case where arguable grounds have been raised and therefore, we cannot dismiss this writ petition in limine at this stage. The objections raised by the petitioner and the justification for the objections given by the Revenue requires serious and detailed consideration.
Accordingly, we are not inclined to dismiss the writ petition at this stage as canvassed by Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel.
We admit the writ petition, direct that the interim order shall continue to remain in operation, we grant liberty to the parties to complete the pleadings and thereafter, the matter be listed for final hearing
-
2017 (3) TMI 1676 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Disallowance u/s 14A made in the course of the search - ITAT cancelled the disallowance in excess of ₹ 69 lacs, was unwarranted because there was no tax imposition income in the given year relying on decision in Cheminvest Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT) - Held that:- Since the ITAT followed the ruling of this Court, and there was no tax imposition income, there could not have been any disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. Its decision, therefore, is sound and does not call for any interference. - Decided against revenue
-
2017 (3) TMI 1675 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of excess provision for purchase of power - Addition to the returned income on account of non considering the reversal of excess billing - assessee company in its return of income had claimed setting off of the carried forward losses of erstwhile MSEB in its hands, on the basis that as MSEB was demerged into three companies - Held that:- The tariff chargeable by the assessee company from MSEDCL for the F.Y. 2005-06 would stand regulated by the order of MERC dated. 07.09.2006.
Our aforesaid view stands fortified by the order in the case of M/s Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs. ACIT,10(1), Mumbai [2015 (10) TMI 597 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein confirmed the disallowance of excess provision for purchase of power amounting to ₹ 320.72 crores by MSEDCL from the assessee company, viz. Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. We thus while disposing of the appeal of the purchaser company, viz. MSEDCL, had already related the order of the Commission, viz. MERC with the year under consideration, i.e A.Y. 2006-07, therefore we find no reason to take a different view, and as such delete the addition of ₹ 320,72,82,510/- in the hands of the assessee company. The ‘Ground of appeal No. 1’ is thus allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations.
Admission of additional evidence - Held that:- CIT(A) had called for a ‘remand report’ from the A.O, and thereafter perusing the contentions of both the parties, viz. the assessee and the revenue, had therein adjudicated the respective issues. Thus in the backdrop of the facts involved in the present case, we do not find any infirmity in the admission of ‘additional evidence’ by the CIT(A), and are thus unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the contention of the A.O that the CIT(A) had erred in admitting the ‘additional evidence’. We thus uphold the order of the CIT(A) on the issue under consideration, and as such dismiss the ‘Ground of appeal No.1’ raised by the department before us.
Addition u/s 43B - interest payable to ‘Power Finance Corporation’ (‘P.F.C’) which had become due during the period 31.05.2005 to 31.03.2006, which in case of non payment would had attracted a disallowance u/s 43B - Held that:- The interest of ₹ 5,492.54463 (in lac), which had become due on the ‘Project loan’ raised by the assessee company from P.F.C, as had become due during the period 31.05.2005 to 31.03.2006, would had called for a disallowance u/s 43B, if the said interest would had been payable as on 31.03.2006, and had not been paid by the assessee company upto the ‘due date’ of filing of its return of income. We find that as claimed by the assessee company that no part of the interest on the P.F.C loan was payable as on 31.03.2006, therefore there was no occasion to carry out any disallowance of any part of such interest u/s 43B of the ‘Act’ - though find ourselves to be in agreement with the contention of the Ld. A.R, but then are of the considered view that the said factual position was supposed to be verified by the CIT(A), whom we find had dispensed with the same and had gone by and accepted the contention of the assessee at the very face of it, thus restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A).
Interest eligible for capitalization - Held that:- A.O vide his remand report had categorically raised his objection on the issue under consideration, to which the assessee had reverted vide his reply dated. 09.11.2009, but then the CIT(A) merely stating that the interest and finance charges were allowable u/s 36(1)(iii) r.w.s 43(1) had on the basis of a non-speaking order, which except for making a mere reference to the statutory provisions, is absolutely bereft and devoid of any reasoning, had summarily accepted the claim of the assessee company without placing on record a satisfactory reasoning as regards the same. As the CIT(A) had allowed the aforesaid claim of the assessee on the basis of a non-speaking order, therefore in all fairness we herein restore the issue
Allowing the claim of the prior period expenses made by the assessee company in its revised return of income - Held that:- On consideration to the aforesaid grounds of appeal so raised by the revenue before us and are of the considered view that the same are misconceived and do not emerge from the order of the CIT(A), as the latter at Page 19 – Para 2.3(f) had concluded that since it was the first year of the assessee company, therefore there could not have been any prior period expenses. Thus in light of the aforesaid facts, now when the ‘Ground of appeal no. 4’ and ‘Ground of appeal no. 5’ do not arise from the order of the CIT(A), therefore the same are dismissed.
Claim of set off of b/f loss/unabsorbed depreciation - Held that:- We find that the CIT(A) had merely given ‘directions’ to the A.O for carrying out certain verifications as regards the assessed brought forward unabsorbed losses and depreciation of erstwhile MSEB, as was available as a final outcome of the further appellate orders passed in the case of MSEB. Final outcome of the exercise carried out by the A.O in pursuance to the directions of the CIT(A), would safely take care of the issues assailed by the revenue vide ‘Ground of appeal no. 6’ , hereinabove. Thus in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts as they so remain, we find no infirmity in the aforesaid directions of the CIT(A), and finding no reason to interfere in the said directions of the CIT(A).
-
2017 (3) TMI 1672 - ITAT MUMBAI
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - provision in bad debt and doubtful debt - Held that:- As assessee has merely failed to provide the provision in bad debt and doubtful debt though the provision is made as per RBI guidelines in the earlier was excess. The assessee has directly claimed the deduction in computation of income instead of providing same in the books for debting in the P & L account as per the provisions of the Act.
The assessee had neither concealed nor filed any inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee has duly disclosed the facts of income in its return of income filed before the department. Therefore, we are of the view that the issue in controversy is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproduct [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it is held that a mere making claim which is not sustainable in law will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
