|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 748 Records
-
2018 (1) TMI 1622
Addition on account of motor accident claims - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2013 (1) TMI 758 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] issue is covered in favour of the assessee wherein the Tribunal has held that merely because the MACT awards are booked by the assessee at a later point of time than the date of the award cannot be reason enough to decline the claim for deduction in respect of these awards. It is sometimes possible, rather its inherent mechanism of the system as it exists, that sometimes there is considerable delay in communicating the awards granted by MACT. The awards are generally conveyed through the lawyers representing the assessee and it does take time in many cases.
It is not the case of the AO that the subsequent claims are duplication of claims in respect of the same liability, and the assessee does not stand to gain as a result of this delay in accounting. In any event, the quantification of claims is verified by the statutory auditors as also the CAG audit teams, and the same method of accounted is being followed by the assessee for last 50 years. As there is no change in method of accounting, as there is no duplication of claims, and, as assessee does not anyway gain anything from delaying accounting for these claims, we see no reasons to reject the claims merely because these claims are accounting for, in the books of accounts, at a point of time later than awards being granted i.e. when the assessee gets to know about the same. Grievance of the AO, regarding crystallization of liability, does not, therefore, survive any longer. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we approve the conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter - Decided in favour of assessee.
Income from license fees of canteen - business income OR income from house property - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2013 (1) TMI 758 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] Admittedly, the major part of the income for the licence fee of canteen is not from staff, but from outsiders and hence this judgment is not applicable to this receipt at all, and even for the receipt of rent on account of staff quarter, the judgment is not applicable because it could not be shown by the learned AR of the assessee that the facts are identical. Regarding the argument that this income was taxed under the head income from business in earlier years, we find that on the plea of consistency, it cannot be held that if a mistake is committed by the AO in earlier years, the same should be perpetuated. This is not case of the assessee that the rental income is not in respect of house property owned by the assessee, and hence in our considered opinion, this rental income is taxable under the head income from house property, as has been held by the authorities below, and hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue, and this ground of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. - Decided in favour of revenue.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1621
Real v/s hypothetical income - Addition on account of accrued interest on NPA account - Mercantile system of accounting - HELD THAT:- In this case, appellant is a co-operative society is assessed to tax and engaged in the business of banking and governed by the banking Regulation Act, 1949. Return of income for assessment year under consideration was e-filed declaring total income at ₹ 2,59,94,100/-. The AO vide order u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 11.03.2015 assessed the total income of ₹ 3,13,72,830/-.
It is also held that in the case of banking companies, any interest accrued on advances classified as non-performing is taxed in the year in which the same is actually received. The theory of only real income is to be taxed is a settled law and therefore notwithstanding the appellant has been following mercantile system of accounting, the appellant could be taxed on the real income and not on the hypothetical income.
Disallowance u/s 14A - Assessee stated that the AO has not made any such observation to this effect that he was not satisfied with the correctness of the claim and just mechanically worked out the disallowance - HELD THAT:- Section 14A has not confirmed specific power to the AO to assume that a part of the expenditure must have necessarily been incurred to earn exempted income which he can estimate and disallow. The AO has no authority to estimate the expenditure which the appellant would have, in his opinion, incurred in relation to the exempted income - Since in the past similar additions were deleted by the CIT(A) and thereafter confirmed by the Hon’ble ITAT Bench. We are not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). In our considered opinion, ld. CIT(A) has passed detailed and reasoned order which does not require any kind of interference at our end. - Decided against revenue.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1618
Addition u/s 68 - Bogus share capital and share premium received by assessee from the 11 private Limited companies - genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the subscribers to the shares not proved - HELD THAT:- Assessee has completely produced the evidences before the AO i.e. the identity of the shareholder by filing the registered address with ROC, PAN No. along with copy of returns of income furnished with particular Ward of the department of the investors. The assessee has also received money from shareholders through account payee cheque and issued documents such as share certificate, return of allotment filed with ROC forms which were filed before the AO. The assessee has also filed copies of bank statement of the subscribers showing that it had sufficient balance in its accounts to enabled the subscriber to subscribe the share capital. In view of these facts and circumstances, once the AO has not rebutted the evidences, the AO cannot disbelieve the same.
As relying on M/S. GAGANDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. [2017 (3) TMI 1263 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in view of the voluminous documentary evidence, only because those persons had not appeared before the AO would not negate the case of the Assessee.
We have also made enquiry from the learned Sr. Departmental Representative, whether the investors or this company is a Shell company or in the list prepared by Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Govt. of India. The learned Sr. DR, stated that this information is not available with the department. We made enquiry from the learned Counsel for the assessee whether this company has been strike off from the Registrar Of Companies or not, the learned Counsel stated that it is very much on the register of Registrar Of Companies. In view of these facts, we reach to a conclusion that this is existing company and even the investors are existing. - Decided against revenue.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1617
Validity of Re-opening of assessment - assessee requesting for the reasons recorded for the purpose of re-opening denied - HELD THAT:- Revenue has not been able to produce any evidence to show that the reasons recorded had been provided to the assessee as prayed for in its letter. This being so, respectfully following the decision in the case of Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [2011 (7) TMI 715 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] as also the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s.Jayanthi Natarajan [2017 (9) TMI 1042 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] we are of the view that the reasons recorded having not been given to the assessee before the completion of the assessment, the re-assessment is invalid and liable to be annulled and we do so. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1616
Addition u/s 69A on account of unexplained cash - additional income disclosed under the head income from other sources/undisclosed income/undisclosed investment - Retraction of Additional Income disclosed - Addition based on the disclosure made by one person in case of a group companies - statement u/s 132(4) relied upon - HELD THAT:- In the present case the additions are involved based on statement u/s 132 (4) of the act as well as cash found during the course of search. The addition because of admissions is bald admission and which is partly retracted and corrected to the extent of ₹ 86 Crores. The statement was obtained by the revenue without collecting the evidences at the time of search.
Neither the ld AO, Nor investigation wing showed any evidence based on which the above disclosure of ₹ 150 crores was substantiated. Therfore there is no reason that matter can be set aside. No justification was alos showed before us in the above ground as to what inquiry ld Ao has failed to make which is now should be made by appellate forum. Furthermore the second addition on account of cash found was also substantiated by the assessee to show wealth tax returns of the family members as well as the cash position statement as on the date of search. AO has made the addition ignoring them. Now before us, it is not stated that what else inquiry or evidences should have been inquired about the above issue.
Therefore we reject the above grounds of the revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1615
Denial of natural justice - claim made by the assessee without filing a revised return - Sales tax subsidy as capital receipt OR revenue receipt - Revenue raising the issue of violation of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules - as contended that when the fresh claim made by the assessee for exclusion of sales tax subsidy, otherwise than by filing a revised return, was not entertained by the AO CIT(Appeals) ought to have given opportunity the Assessing Officer to examine the said claim of the assessee as required by Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules - HELD THAT:- We find merit in the contention raised by the assessee in this regard that there being no additional evidence filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) in support of its claim for exclusion of sales tax subsidy, Rule 46A has no application and the ld. CIT(Appeals) was not required to give any opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee.
CIT (D.R.) has urged that such opportunity even otherwise deserves to be given to the Assessing Officer in the interest of substantial justice. CIT(Appeals), who is having co-terminus powers to that of the Assessing Officer, has already examined this issue in detail in the light of the material available on record including the scheme of the West Bengal Government under which the amount of sales tax subsidy in question was received by the assessee and after having satisfied himself on merit, he has allowed the claim of the assessee for exclusion of sales tax subsidy by treating the same as capital receipt not chargeable to tax.
As this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Rasoi Limited [2011 (5) TMI 23 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]and since the ld. CIT(Appeals) has given relief to the assessee on this issue by relying on the said decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, we are of the view that no cause of justice is going to be served by sending the matter back to the Assessing Officer for examination - uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) allowing the claim of the assessee for exclusion of sales tax subsidy by treating the same as capital receipt not liable to tax and dismiss this appeal of the Revenue.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1614
Disallowance of deduction under 80-lC for Ferro unit, since the assessee failed to make any substantial expansion - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case CIT(A) has rightly come to the conclusion that in respect of unit which claimed deduction earlier u/s 80IB of the Act such unit will continue to get the benefit of deduction of 80IC of the Act subject to the limitation of ten year period. The deduction for an undertaking making substantial expansion of the existing undertaking is not applicable in the case of the assessee. We are of the view that the conclusions drawn by CIT(A) on this issue are fully justified and does not call for any interference. Accordingly this appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Disallowance of deduction under 80-lA for CFS (Sonai) Kolkata,( an infrastructural facility) - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case there remains no ambiguity with regard to the fact that assessee is engaged in CFS which is an infrastructure facilities as envisaged u/s 80IA of the Act. The deduction was denied by the AO on the ground that assessee is not engaged in the business of development of infrastructure facilities. However, after examining the above stated facts we find that the assessee has taken a land on lease for setting up the infrastructure facilities at KP and has incurred the cost for its development. Therefore, we hold that the assessee has set up the CFS facility and operating the same and accordingly eligible for claiming the deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. In the light of above reasoning, we hold that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is correct - Decided against revenue.
Disallowance of deduction under 80lA for CFS (JJP) Kolkata (infrastructural facility) - AO has denied the deduction on the ground that assessee is not engaged in business of infrastructure facilities - HELD THAT:- ssessee is engaged in CFS which is an infrastructure facilities as envisaged u/s 80IA of the Act. The deduction was denied by the AO on the ground that assessee is not engaged in the business of development of infrastructure facilities. However, after examining the above stated facts we find that the assessee has taken a land on lease for setting up the infrastructure facilities at KP and has incurred the cost for its development. Therefore, we hold that the assessee has set up the CFS facility and operating the same and accordingly eligible for claiming the deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act - Decided against revenue.
Disallowance of lease rent amortization - proportionate deduction was claimed by assessee u/s 37(1) of the Act after the commencement of its business - HELD THAT:- We find that the CBDT has issued a Circular 9/2014 dated 23.04.2014 wherein the impugned expenditure was allowed over the lease period after the commencement of business.
In the case where an assessee has claimed any deduction out of initial cost of development of infrastructure facility of roads/highways under BOT projects in earlier year, the total deduction so claimed for the Assessment Years prior to the Assessment Year under consideration maybe deducted from the initial cost of infrastructure facility of roads /highways and the cost ‘so reduced’ shall be amortized equally over the remaining period of toll concessionaire agreement. This Circular is applicable only to those infrastructure projects for development of road/highways on BOT basis where ownership is not vested with the assessee under the concessionaire agreement - Decided against revenue.
Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - Non recording of satisfaction - assessee has earned dividend income which is exempted from tax though the assessee has made a disallowance - HELD THAT:- No defect of whatsoever was pointed out by the AO at the time of assessment proceedings. Rather the AO had resorted to the provision of Rule 8D of the Rule for the purpose of disallowance. However, the provision of law requires the AO before resorting to the disallowance has to record the satisfaction after referring the books of account of the assessee. But in the instant case, the AO has failed to do so. Therefore, we hold that the AO has passed his order against the provision of law.
We draw support from judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court [2015 (3) TMI 155 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that without recording satisfaction there could be no question of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D.
Besides the above, we find that there was sufficient fund available with the assessee. Therefore any inference can be drawn that the impugned investment was made out own fund of assessee - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1613
TP Adjustment - assessee claims that Internal TNMM should have been considered as the most appropriate method - Comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Rejection of internal TNMM analysis undertaken by the appellant during the course of transfer pricing assessment should not have been rejected. Appellant company has provided identical services to AE as well as non AEs and functions performed, assets used and risks assumed in AE as well as non AE business were similar. Therefore, even internal TNMM can be considered as most appropriate method. We find that the operating margin of the appellant from the AE segment was derived at 30.90% and the operating margins in the non AE segment was derived at ₹ 74.92%.
TPO rejected the internal TNMM analysis on the basis that as the appellant has made operating loss in non AE business, the transactions with non AEs are not at independent rates and they have been undertaken only to increase capacity utilization. The total turnover of Non AE segment of ₹ 5.67 lacs as against the turnover of ₹ 1909.60 lacs in the case of international transactions with AE.
CIT(A) confirmed the rejection by holding that the turnover of the third party segment is very much less compared to that with AE. CIT(A) further held that the appellant has not proved the allocation of the common cost between AE and non AEs and whether they are scientific and at arm’s length. We find that the TPO has nowhere disputed the common cost allocation made by the appellant. We also find that the ld. CIT(A) has also never raised any doubt on the allocation.
The Comparable CG-Vak Sofware &Exports Limited was rejected as the turnover of the company is less than 1 crore and hence does not qualify turnover filter. The turnover of the relevant segment of the company is 86.10 lacs but just because this company does not pass the turnover filter of 1 crore should not have been rejected as the business is exactly similar to that of the appellant company.
If the aforementioned two companies are accepted as comparable, as exhibited elsewhere, the average of the 5 comparables comes to 15.17% whereas that of the appellant company comes to 30.90%.
We further find that the appellant company has earned foreign exchange gain on revaluation of its outstanding revenue receivables which were not considered as part of operating profit by the TPO as well as CIT(A). We find that the foreign exchange gain earned by the appellant pertained towards revaluation of its debtors as on the balance sheet date which means that exchange fluctuation was towards revenue item. Further, Safe Harbour Rules are only applicable to those assessee who have opted for Safe Harbour Rules and the same is made effective from A.Y. 2013-14 onwards.
Foreign exchange fluctuation should be considered as operating in nature for the purposes of computing the operating profit of the appellant as well as comparable companies.Upward Adjustment is uncalled for and we direct the same to be deleted.
Accentia Technologies Ltd., Acropetal Technologies Ltd. Coral Hub Limited - First Appellate Authority has held that these companies are incomparable to the business of the appellant and therefore the ld. CIT(A) has ruled in favour of the appellant.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1611
Reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - Income accrued in India - Permanent establishment - attribution of profits - HELD THAT:- In view of the fact that the Dispute Resolution Panel has found that there is no permanent establishment in India, the judgment of the High Court is set-aside and the appeals are allowed accordingly
-
2018 (1) TMI 1610
Reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - Income accrued in India - Permanent establishment - attribution of profits - HELD THAT:- In view of the fact that the Dispute Resolution Panel has found that there is no permanent establishment in India, the judgment of the High Court is set-aside and the appeals are allowed accordingly
-
2018 (1) TMI 1609
Maintainability of appeal - low tax effect - tax effect on account of the said alleged audit objection - Reopening of assessment on audit objection disallowing of total income as admitted before adjustment of loss as well as disallowance of depreciation claim on MS Rolls - HELD THAT:- Revenue has filed the present petition to recall the order of the Tribunal [2016 (7) TMI 1590 - ITAT CHENNAI] and adjudicate the issue on merits on the ground that there was audit objection and such audit objection was accepted by the Department, but, the Revenue has not filed any documentary evidence along with the petition or during the course of hearing of the petition.
On perusal of the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Chennai under Rule 15 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, it appears that the appeal was filed by the Revenue in the regular course and not on the basis of audit objection. Therefore, it is obvious that para 8 of Circular No.21 of 2015 issued by CBDT is not applicable.
We find that against dismissal of the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Revenue in the case of DCIT v. Paragon Steels Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (3) TMI 1825 - ITAT CHENNAI] the Revenue preferred further appeal before the Hon’ble Madras High Court [2017 (12) TMI 1604 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. While dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue held Tribunal ultimately concluded that paragraph 8 of Circular No.21/2015 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes is not applicable and accordingly, the said miscellaneous petition filed by the Revenue was rejected. MP filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1608
Rejection of books of accounts - estimation of net profit @ 8% - addition on the contract receipts - HELD THAT:- Considering the various aspects recorded by the authorities below, the Bench are of the view that the rejection of books of account is justified. However, with regard to claim of estimation of net profit of business other than the grit business, the Bench find that the ld. CIT(A) has relied on the findings of the ITAT in the case of A.Y. 2010-11. However, in the decision for the A.Y. 2011-12, the ITAT has found that the declared profit of the assessee was more than 8% of the gross receipts subject to deduction on account of depreciation and interest, therefore, the addition was deleted.
G.P. rate for the year under consideration was better than the earlier two immediate preceding years. Net profit @ 8% of gross receipts subject to further deduction on account of depreciation and interest are held to be reasonable. Such view has been held by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jain Construction Co & ors.[1999 (9) TMI 26 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] . In assessee’s case, the net profit rate subject to deduction of depreciation and interest comes @8.09% of the gross receipts, which is more than 8%.
Wherever even books of account are rejected by the Assessing Officer then also no trading addition is required to be made as held in the case of CIT Vs Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog [2001 (7) TMI 19 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] .
CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the part addition in both business of the assessee. Hence, appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1607
Short term capital gain - transfer of equity shares and such transactions as charged to Securities Transaction Tax - assessee had applied the rate of 10% based on Section 111A - HELD THAT:- None of the lower authorities had addressed the issue whether the transactions of shares claimed by the assessee satisfied the conditions set out in Sec. 111A of the Act. Though the ld. AO has stated in the assessment order that assessee could not prove the actual delivery of shares to it, how he came to such a conclusion is not clear. We are therefore of the opinion that the issue requires a fresh look by the ld. Assessing Officer. We set aside the orders of the authorities below on this issue and remit it back to the ld. Assessing Officer to consider the claim afresh, in the light of the conditions specified Sec.111A
Exemption u/s 10(38) - income earned by it from transactions relating to units in M/s. ICICI emerging sector fund - long term capital gains - HELD THAT:- Income of a Venture Capital Fund is exempt provided it satisfied the conditions set out in clause (b) of Explanation 1. By virtue of the deeming provisions (1) of Sec. 115U of the Act income accruing to a person out of investments made in a Venture Capital Fund also gets the exemption u/s.10(23FB) of the Act. Though the grounds of the Revenue say that compliance with Securities and Exchange Board of India (Venture Capital Funds) Regulations, 1996 has not been established, what we find is that form No.64 specified in Rule 12C which is to be furnished by the Venture Capital Fund was filed by the assessee. Said Form 64 by necessary implication means that at the Venture Capital Fund had complied with the conditions set out in Explanation (1) to Section 10(23FB). Assessing Officer did not find anything wrong in the said form No.64 which is the Form set out by the Rules under sub-section 2 of Section 115U of the Act. We cannot also say that the income which is exempt u/s.10(23FB) of the Act had to be considered on receipt basis and not on accrual basis since Section 115U of the act takes within its ambit accrued income also. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in our opinion was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee u/s.10(23FB) of the Act read alongwith Section 115U of the Act. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes
-
2018 (1) TMI 1605
Disallowance u/s 14A - CIT(A) restricted the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of 10% of the income - HELD THAT:- AO made the disallowance by invoking the provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which is applicable for the assessment year 2008-09 and not for the year under consideration i.e. assessment year 2007-08. We, therefore, do not see any merit in this ground of the departmental appeal.
Addition invoking the provisions of Section 69C - CIT(A) has deleted the above addition - HELD THAT:- Reply of the parties from whom the enquiries were conducted by the AO and in fact they confirmed that the transaction of the sale of the properties is at the purchase price shown by the appellant. Provision of section 50C for that relevant year applied in the hands of the seller and not the buyer. In the present case the assessee is a buyer. Hence, he stated that income cannot be added in the hands of the assessee by invoking provision of section 50C - As examined that provision of section 56(1)(vii)(b) of the Act is not applicable as it applies w.e.f. 01.04.2014. DR also could not point out any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A). We are also of the considered view that there is no provision of difference between stamp duty value as well as the transacted value can be added in the hands of the buyer - Appeal of the department is dismissed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1604
TP Adjustment - rate of interest on CCDs - whether it is to be calculated under PLR as claimed by the assessee or at LIBOR+ as computed by the TPO/DRP - HELD THAT:- As decided in Adama India Pvt. Ltd [2017 (1) TMI 893 - ITAT HYDERABAD] we agree with the assessee's contentions that the CCDs cannot be categorised as a loan and LIBOR plus two hundred basis points benchmark cannot be accepted on the facts of the case.
Coming to the issue of adopting the benchmark rate in Indian context, assessee has justified the ALP not only on the basis of SBI PLR, which was at 12.26% for the year under consideration, but also from the data from NSDL website in which average coupon rate ranged from 0.50% to 16.50% with an arithmetic mean of 12.50%. These rates were already before the TPO. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no need to restore the matter to the file of the AO for reexamination, when assessee has justified the issuance of CCDs at 12%. We are of the opinion that the rate at which the CCDs were given are within the range, therefore, no further addition can be considered under the TP provisions. In view of that, the addition so made is deleted and grounds of the assessee.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1600
Deferred Payment Guarantee Commission - Accrual of income - HELD THAT:- As in assessee’s own case for AY 1984-85 to 19989-90 & 1996-97 [2016 (4) TMI 1392 - ITAT MUMBAI] this ground of appeal is allowed in favour of assessee.
Disallowance of Depreciation on Matured Investments - HELD THAT:- As in assessee’s own case for AY 1984-85 to 19989-90 & 1996-97, [2016 (4) TMI 1392 - ITAT MUMBAI]this ground of appeal is decided against the assessee.
Disallowance in respect of payments for Scientific Research - HELD THAT:- AR agreed that assessee had not challenged the order for the year 1996-97[2016 (4) TMI 1392 - ITAT MUMBAI] before the Tribunal. As the assessee had accepted the order of the FAA for the earlier year, we are of the opinion that there is no need to disturb the order of the CIT(A) for the current year as facts for both the years are identical- except that the amounts involved are different. Confirming the order of the FAA Ground is decided against assessee.
Disallowance of expenses for earning exempt income u/s. 10(15)(iv)(c) & (f), 10(15)(iv)(h), 10(23G) and 10(33) by applying the provisions of section 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- Various propositions which have been raised by the assessee in the context of the disallowance under section 14A of the Act which require specific determination by the AO. Therefore, following the earlier precedent, the matter relating to section 14A is remanded back to the file of AO, with the directions to allow the assessee an opportunity to make submissions, and the AO shall pass a speaking order giving determination on each of the propositions as per law. Thus, with these directions, the matter is restored back to the file of AO to adjudicate afresh as per law. Hence, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Disallowance of depreciation on leased assets - HELD THAT:- In assessee’s own case for AY 1996-97 wherein similar ground of appeal was decided against the assessee.
Unearned interest on doubtful advances as per section 43D not allowed as a deduction - HELD THAT:- This ground of appeal is restored to the file of AO with similar direction as per order .[2016 (4) TMI 1392 - ITAT MUMBAI]
TDS u/s 195 - disallowance of expenses incurred in connection with issue of Resurgent India Bonds u/s. 40(a)(i) on account of non-deduction of tax at source - HELD THAT:- expenditure has been paid towards the services in connection with the issue of RIBs and are in the nature of advertisements, collecting bank commission etc. Broadly speaking the payments are in the nature of commission paid to non-residents for services of mobilizing deposits, etc. showing that the services have been rendered abroad. It is also not the case of the AO that any of the non-residents in question have any business operation in India. Therefore, in the said background, the ratio of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd. [1980 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] is clearly attracted which lays down that commission earned by non-resident for services rendered abroad could not be construed as incomes accrued or arisen in India. Thus, on this point itself, we are inclined to uphold the stand of the assessee and accordingly the disallowance made by lower authorities by invoking section 40(a)(i) of the Act is hereby set-aside. On this ground assessee succeeds. Hence, this ground of appeal is allowed.
Disallowance of contribution to SBI Retired Employees Medical Benefit Fund - Addition u/s 40A - HELD THAT:- provisions of section 40A(9) should not make any harm to the expenditure incurred bonafide, that the contribution by the assessee bank was not disputed by the AO, stating that the same was not bonafide, that the funds were not controlled by the assessee banks, that the bonafide contribution made by the assessee as an employer was not hit by section 9 of section 40A of the Act. In the case under consideration, there is no doubt about genuineness of payment nor it is the case of the AO or FAA that Trust was not bonafide or the expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the employees. Considering these facts of the case and following the judgment of State Bank of Travancore [1986 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] - Ground decided in favour of the assessee.
Provision for bad and doubtful debts to be allowed u/s. 36(1)(viia) - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute regarding the claim allowed by the AO is proper as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia). When the allowable claim has been accepted by the AO under the provision of section 36(1)(viia) then merely the provision made on the basis of RBI guidelines does not become allowable for deduction in contravention of the provision of section 36(1)(viia). It is pertinent to note that when the claim of deduction specifically provided u/s 36(1)(viia) then the same cannot be allowed by applying any other provision. Accordingly, we do not find any merit or substance in the claim of the assessee. Hence dismissed.
Disallowance of provision in respect of foreign offices - HELD THAT:- Considering the decision of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 1998-99, wherein similar ground of appeal has been restored to the file of AO, hence, this ground of appeal is also restored to file of AO to decide it afresh in accordance with law.
Staff Welfare expenses on account of payments made to educational institution for reservation of seat to the children of employees - Allowable revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- We find that both the revenue sources have treated this expenditure as opposed to the public policy, however, in our view the same cannot be a valid reason for disallowing the expenditure because this aspect does not come within the provision of IT Act 1961. We are further of the opinion that it is a matter of corporate policy where policies of this type are framed after due consultation with employees/officers Association, hence, it cannot be treated as arbitrary. Further, the officers of the bank to not get any bonus whereas the employees get bonus which can also be treated as arbitrary in the similar manner, if the contention of the revenue are accepted. As far as incurrence of this expenditure for business purpose is concerned, that is not doubted. In this background, we hold that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is allowable as revenue expenditure. Thus, this ground of the assessee stands accepted.
Exchange Gain on repatriation GDR issue proceeds - AO disallowed exchange Gain on repatriation GDR holding that gain of the amount arise from the money raised against the equity capital, had been realized in the normal course of business and was utilized as circulating capital in banking - HELD THAT:- The exchange gain has arisen on account of holding of GDR proceed and their subsequent repatriation to India. Accordingly, the exchange gain is capital in nature and not liable to tax. Moreover, the assessing officer has not disputed those facts that the money raised by way of GDR was raised against capital equity. Thus, we find that the ld CIT (A) allowed the ground of appeal after considering the fact that GDR proceeds are part of capital receipt. Hence, do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by CIT (A). In the result this ground of appeal is dismissed.
Disallowance of interest on securities - HELD THAT:- Section 145 of the Act could not override the provisions of Section 5 and, therefore, no person could be assessed unless the income accrued to him and in the cases of Securities, interest accrued to the assessee on specified dates and not on day today basis as the assessee has no right to receive the income before fixed date, hence, interest was taxable on the due basis only. In this view of the matter, we accept this ground of the assessee.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1599
Rectification of mistake - Reopening of assessment - addition made u/s 69 and u/s 69A of the Act towards unexplained investment in jewellery and cash deposits - as per CIT-A even if the above addition is deleted, it is still liable to be taxed u/s 2(22)(e) - assessee has raised the alternative grounds in both the appeals that it cannot be treated as a deemed divided u/s 2(22)(e) - Revenue filed the M.A. contending that the alternative ground raised by the assessee on similar lines as in A.Y 2010-11 has not been adjudicated by the Tribunal resulting in an apparent mistake which needs rectification - HELD THAT:- We find that the appeals before the Tribunal were filed by the assessee and the alternative grounds raised by the assessee are not adjudicated by the Tribunal. However, we find that non-adjudication of the said grounds by the Tribunal do not cause any prejudice to the interests of the Revenue and therefore, we see no mistake in the order of the Tribunal which needs rectification at the instance of the Revenue.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1593
Deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) - Interest income earned from deposits with the Trivandrum District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram - whether a sum assessed as `income from other sources’ whether is entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(d)? - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax & Anrs. Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society [2015 (4) TMI 829 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] had categorically held that deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the I.T.Act is only for income received on investments with a Co-operative Society and not a Co-operative Bank. Whereas earlier Bench of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax & Anrs. Vs. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society [2017 (1) TMI 1100 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and held that Co-operative Society includes a Co-operative Bank and interest earned from deposits with a Co-operative Bank is also entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the I.T.Act.
The assessee had specifically raised the contention that the assessee is only a Co-operative Society and not a Cooperative Bank. In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that the matter needs to be examined by the A.O. afresh in the light of the certificate issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies regarding the status of Trivandrum District Co-operative Bank Limited. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1591
Assessment u/s 153A - Disallowance u/s 14A - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by relying on the judgment of CIT Vs. All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. [2012 (7) TMI 222 - ITAT MUMBAI(SB)] - HELD THAT:- During the course of the search and seizure action conducted on the assessee on 29.08.2011, no material whatsoever was found as regards the disallowance u/s 14A. We find that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. (Supra) had upheld the order of the special bench of the Tribunal, wherein it was observed that in the absence of incriminating material seized during the course of the search and seizure proceedings conducted under Sec. 132, no addition in respect of an unabated assessment could be made. CIT(A) in the present case going by the rule of judicial discipline had followed the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. (supra), therefore, no infirmity emerges from his order. - Decided against revenue.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1588
Capitalization of interest expenses - loan has been taken to invest in capital asset - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has only accepted the alternative claim of the assessee and allowed capitalization of interest expenditure since no business activity was carried out by the assessee during impugned AY. AO, in paragraph 3.2 of the quantum assessment order has also expressed similar view. Regarding rate of interest of 32%, the revenue could not point out how the same was excessive or unreasonable in the circumstances. The other expenditure of ₹ 41,900/-, being administrative in nature and incurred to maintain the corporate identity has rightly been allowed as revenue expenditure.
Finding no strength in revenue’s appeal, we dismiss the same.
........
|
